Amongst conservatives, convention wisdom has it that whenever it is tried, conservatism wins. Based upon the evidence, I am afraid that is only partly true. When conservative principles are applied to governing a country, they may work quite well. However, conservatism does not often win elections, and that poses a big problem. Without the ability to win elections, how can conservatives govern?
This is the first part of a four-part essay that examines why conservatives have trouble getting elected and remaining true to their conservative principles. Here are the four parts:
- Societal Succession and the Loss of Frontier Virtues
- The Organized Political Constituency
- The Politician’s Dilemma
- Pivotal Role of Baby Boomers
Societal Succession and the Loss of Frontier Virtues
In this part, we examine why societies depart from long held traditions. By definition, conservatism is a reaction to change. Conservatives regard the traditions and the lessons passed down from previous generations with respect, and they do not discard them lightly. Hence, in order to protect the best of our traditions from poorly considered changes, conservatives must understand why societies do change.
Every society runs the chance of being a victim of its own success. This principle is perhaps best illustrated by analogy. Consider the process of ecological succession. Imagine an area after it has been subjected to a catastrophic event such as the eruption of a volcano. The soil is now nonexistent. All we have is barren, cooling ash. The wildlife is dead or departed. Life must begin anew. In time the ash cools, and pioneers arrive. Seedlings wafted upon the wind or carried in the feathers of bird take root. Grasses grow. Insects arrive. Birds come to feed upon the insects and grain, and the soil slowly becomes rich in humus and teems with micro biotic life. Eventually, higher plants, bush and trees, take root, and forest dwellers replace the wildlife of the grassy meadow.
Not so very long ago, in the land where we now live, pioneers arrived from Europe. Explorers, soldiers, and self-reliant men and women made this land their home. They worked hard, and in the process, they “tamed” the land. The native “savages” they evicted, killed, or assimilated. The forest and fields they converted to farmland and cities, and the wilderness slowly diminished and disappeared. Eventually, the land acquired a comfortable, settled character, and paved roads replaced wilderness trails. Just as a forest might replace a meadow, civilization replaced frontier society.
The changing environment emphasized the need for different virtues. Pioneers live close to the land; they thrive off of its abundance. Each must depend upon himself and his immediate neighbors. Of necessity, the pioneer must have faith in God. Pioneers depend upon divine providence to provide the abundance they harvest from the wilderness. Seemingly, civilization works a change. City people live in isolation from the land; they thrive off the works of other men. Within a teeming crowd, each depends upon himself and the work of many other hands, most unseen and unknown. Of necessity, city people must have faith in government. City people depend upon the guiding hand of omnipresent government institutions to regulate the economic systems that feed, cloth and shelter them.
To survive change, people must adapt. The virtues required to prosper in “civilized” lands are not necessarily the same as those needed to thrive in a wilderness. Where the warrior’s courage and physical prowess had once been prized, oratorical and scholarly legal expertise are now needed. When the lonely wilderness has been replaced by a crowded city, company men, skilled negotiators and organizers, must replace self reliant, rugged individualists. Yet we must not discard traditional values too readily. We should adapt in wisdom, not haste.
Consider the reverse situation. When the pioneers arrived in America, they arrived from civilization, and they had to adapt to the wilderness. Those who failed often died. What new virtues did they adopt. What virtues from the civilized world did they choose to retain?
When the pioneers arrived on our shores liberalism was defined as less government. On the other hand, conservatism was defined as protecting the prerogatives of government. Because a faraway English King had little to offer and little control over American colonials, the control of his government was eventually rejected. However, since that time, we have been re-imposing the same regimen that that English King wanted to impose upon us all by ourselves. Less we beware, King George III may win after all.
So what you are arguing here is that settlement and frontier values embrace the ideas of individualism, while cities and the social interactions that occur there engender socialism?
This is a bit too clean-cut and convenient to hold, but I’ll be interested to read where the next three installments lead.
It should be noted that — despite its utter failure in America — much of America thrived leading into the New Deal and beyond. In fact, there are many European socialists who would look upon America’s polity and government with a great deal of scorn.
In fact, I would argue that the free market is the only creator of wealth and is responsible for the betterment of mankind for the last 500 years of Western civilization. As is often repeated, the free market is the only moral system…
Shaun – Thanks for the comment.
I agree that what people embrace and what they should embrace are two differing things.
Your first statement is an accurate assessment of what I have thus far written. Consider that Republicans win in rural areas and Democrats win in highly urbanized areas. Does city life cause people to become socialists? There is a correlation, but I also agree the problem is more complex than just where one lives. Thus, I have more to write about this.