Two brilliant
commentators have recently written columns expressing optimism about the
conservative movement. Since I regard myself as generally an optimist, I
hate to be the guy that sees the conservative glass as half-empty –
but sometimes I do.
Professor Francis Fukuyama, in his Wall Street Journal piece
"Conservatism 'Matures,'" argued that the conservative
revolution that began with America's Ronald Reagan and Britain's
Margaret Thatcher has finally reached its peak and is now receding. But
he seems to conclude that this is a positive development because during
the '90s, conservatism was being co-opted by Libertarianism, which was
contrary to its nature.
He cites two negative manifestations of the Libertarians' hostility
to big government: their isolationism and their attitude toward
biotechnology – many libertarians oppose "a ban on research
cloning of human embryos" and "on reproductive cloning as well
(that is, the production of cloned children)."
Fukuyama implies that because libertarians have discredited
themselves on these issues (and presumably others), they have
effectively divorced themselves from the conservative movement, which
has matured as a result.
I agree with Fukuyama that Libertarians are wrong on those issues,
but disagree that the conservative movement was ever morphing into
Libertarianism. While conservatives have largely rejected these negative
aspects of Libertarianism, they have hardly embraced its positive
aspects, specifically free-market economics and the concept of limiting
the federal government to its proper constitutional roles (it's proper
for the government to protect life).
Which leads me to George Will's column "Conservatives Should Be
Pleased," in which Will maintained that conservatives ought to quit
carping at President Bush because he "is second only to Ronald
Reagan, and not second by much, the most conservative president in
living memory."
Will conceded that Bush erred in three important
"decisions" – steel tariffs, campaign-finance reform and
Mideast policy – but said that these "are not likely to establish
patterns," and so conservatives should quit being disgruntled and
acting like victims.
Besides, said Will, though "minimal government conservatism is
dead," "Bush has positioned his party as pro-choice where it
will matter most to most Americans in coming years – ... education ...
Social Security ... and medicine."
I don't often disagree with Will, but he was really straining to put
a positive spin on these things. First, if minimal-government
conservatism is dead, conservatives should be disgruntled. How can Will
say that conservatives should be pleased when their core ideology has
expired? Second, I've yet to see any appreciable expansion of freedom in
the areas of education, Social Security and medicine – or any prospect
for it.
Contrary to what Will and Fukuyama say, conservatives have plenty to
be concerned about – primarily because constitutional conservatism
indeed may be dying, despite the consistent failures of big-government
liberalism.
How often, for example, do we hear congressmen or the president
objecting to a bill on the grounds that the government has no business
under the Constitution legislating in such areas (campaign finance
reform)? In the last few weeks alone, President Bush abandoned efforts
to rescind President Clinton's bogus designation of 17 national
monuments, endorsed government mandates for mental-health insurance, and
awarded $8.35 million in federal grants to help Americans "without
access to the financial system" to open bank accounts.
Meanwhile Republicans and Democrats are fighting over who can dole
out more prescription-drug benefits. How very compassionate – unless
you realize that there's nothing compassionate about the federal
government, piece by piece, swallowing our liberties.
While Mr. Fukuyama may rejoice at the Libertarians' waning influence
in the conservative movement, I think he ought to consider the negative
ramifications of that as well. Though conservatives may believe
libertarians are off base on a number of issues, they could take lessons
from them in their advocacy of limiting the federal government in a
variety of areas.
Conservatives understand that freedom depends on restraints on
governmental power and foundational moral values – the only basis upon
which to establish a regime of limited government in the first place.
Broadly speaking, liberals believe in neither, and Libertarians dismiss
the latter. So liberalism is still the main culprit in destroying our
freedoms. Or is it?
Maybe Will was right about one thing. Perhaps conservatives are too
quick to claim victimhood. Maybe it's time they looked at themselves and
asked whether they, too, are failing in their primary mission of holding
government to its proper limitations to ensure freedom.
I don't think I'm being an alarmist to suggest that while we still
enjoy considerable freedom today, absent a reversal of current trends,
it's only a matter of time before we surrender complete authority to a
paternalistic state. But we don't have to accept this fate. It's not too
late to fill the other half of the glass.
email Jacq'