Conservatism and Anarchism, or Why “Limited Government” Is Not Synonymous with “No Government”
By Jason Johnson | Thursday, January 20th, 2011 | PolicyBefore his now infamous meltdown at a recent town hall, Tucson shooting survivor Eric Fuller gave an interview to Democracy NOW, excerpts of which were picked up by Politico last Friday. While I do not wish to disparage survivors of the attack (they have suffered enough), Fuller and so many others in the wake of this tragedy, repeated a baseless charge that has gone unchallenged for far too long: “Their [Sarah Palin, Glen Beck and John Boehner] wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled — senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism…” (emphasis added). The “lunatic fringe anarchism” of which Mr. Fuller et al. speaks is no province of the right.
“What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?” Lincoln rhetorically asked in his 1860 Cooper Union speech. Fundamentally, Lincoln was right: from Aristotle to Locke, Smith, Burke and Madison and more recently Russell Kirk and Hugh Heclo, conservative political thought has emphasized the fallen nature of humanity and the accompanying importance of institutions (family, Church and State) to constrain the worst excesses of our nature, channeling our energy into more productive ends. This is why, in no small part, conservatives have long placed ourselves on the side of ordered liberty, in stark opposition to the absolute democratic, utopian or totalitarian schemes of philosophes, Marxists and pop psychology. We do not “stand athwart history yelling ‘stop’” because we oppose progress or because we fail to recognize that times change; we adhere to the old and tried because we respect the wisdom of our ancestors and understand the our society is an organic being, transcending time and rescuing us from the ugly and short life of a summer fly:
Society is indeed a contract. …It is not to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, ed., Frank M. Turner (New Haven, C.T.: Yale University Press, 2003), 82).
Similarly, the Framers of our federal Constitution well understood that “…what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The 222 years that have transpired since Madison wrote Federalist 51 have seen the advent of many technological advances (electricity, automobiles, the Internet, etc.), but, despite the best efforts of social science, mankind has yet to become angelic—nor will our descendents some two centuries hence. That is largely why “conservative” and “lunatic fringe anarchism” are oxymoronic terms.
While both extremes of the ideological continuum have their unhinged elements, lunatic fringe anarchism seems more openly accepted on the far left than it does even on the far right. Anyone familiar with the contemporary philosophical ramblings of postmodern or deconstructionist philosophy will recognize a recurring theme: our existing system–civil society and culture–is designed to suppress individuality (i.e. forced conformity). One of my least favorite writers of this period, Michel Foucault, reflecting on the origin and nature of prisons, knowledge and even language, is far more likely to instill within his devotees an anti-government, anti-institution paranoia than any speech ever delivered by John Boehner or Sarah Palin. For example:
But we can surely accept the general proposition that, in our societies, the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain “political economy” of the body: even if they do not make use of violent or bloody punishment, even when they use “lenient” methods involving confinement or correction, it is always the body that is at issue—the body and its forces, their utility and their docility, their distribution and their submission (Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Random House, 1995), 25).
While Foucault’s books are taught in university courses and feted by the New York Times, mainstream conservatives justly condemn the twisted theories and perverse actions of “our fringe.”
Mr. Fuller and others have every right to be angry about the actions of one deranged gunman, yet they have no basis for alleging that just because we conservatives have frequent, and often heated, arguments over the proper size and scope of government—in no small part also a product of our colonial heritage—that we are somehow anarchists. To the contrary: we are institutionalists who respect the existing system and its underlying raison d’être. The real anarchists and their enablers operate openly on the far left bank and few contemporary critics of anarchism seem to care.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A lifelong political junkie, Jason caught the political bug as a fifth grader after meeting George Allen in 1993. Since then he has studied political science at both the undergraduate and graduate level. When not perusing the blogs or volunteering for conservative Republicans, Jason enjoys cheering on his beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and spending time at his Bedford County home.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
12 Responses to "Conservatism and Anarchism, or Why “Limited Government” Is Not Synonymous with “No Government”"
You are correct that leftists are guilty of projection when they call conservatives “radical” or “extreme”. Conservatism can degenerate into reactionary regimes but these almost always limit their misery to a single country and are proponents of family and that society’s existing traditions. Totalitarian (leftist) regimes seek to destroy family and traditions in order to make a person a servant of the state. This is basically a militarization of society although leftists would recoil at the analogy.
Valentinus: Thanks for your feedback. My only point of disagreement is probably an issue of semantics: conservatism, of the old-school, Continental European variety, can be monarchical and reactionary, but Anglo-American conservatism (which I wrote about above), also known as “classical liberalism,” with its emphasis on natural rights, has yet to produce a repressive regime.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/19/house-democrat-compares-republican-lies-to-nazi-propagandist/
“A House Democrat compared Republicans to one of the most reviled Nazis during World War ll– ignoring efforts on both sides of the aisle to tone down the political rhetoric.
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee, used a late night House floor speech Tuesday to hit Republicans for what he called “lies” about a government takeover of the health care system, and evoked Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.”
If a deranged gunman started shooting Democrats, I wouldn’t blame Cohen, however, it is interesting Republicans are expected to tone down our freedom of speech and he is not.
I meant shooting Republicans, BRING BACK THE EDIT BUTTON PLEASE!
Jason – Excellent… two thumbs up … definitely a contender for BD’s “best of” list. And, just curious – do you watch PBS?
Kathy – edit feature is back on (Thank you JR!), but now found below the “submit comment” button, if that helps?
Here’s where we get into the general distance between the two types of American conservative. One hails from the natural law tradition of Jefferson, Grotius, Sydney, Bellarmine and ultimately Thomas Aquinas. The other from the English social contract theory of Burke, Locke, Hobbes, et al.
Conservatives of the Burkean trend tend to see the American Revolution — and all gains for liberty — as temporary against the inexorable march of totalitarianism, whether that is an emperor, a monarch, a parliament, or a republic. Burkean conservatives see their contest as a delaying action at best, and each election loss that passes by as akin to the moving the minute hand closer to doomsday.
Natural law adherents see it much differently. There is a set and established order in this world of ours, and our laws either conform to them… or they are not laws at all. Temporary conditions where government exceeds its boundaries are remedied either through election, time, revolution, or ideally the wisdom of leaders.
Now when it boils down to “anarchists” — which of the two theories would more readily embrace the term? Your natural law Thomist, of course.
Now swing the pendulum back towards continental Europe and the likes of Sartre, Derrida, Foucault or some of their more modern contemporaries such as Badiou, Zizek, etc. Continental philosophy and its various strands don’t share the same Anglo-American history of revolution, bloodshed, liberty, constitution, and individualist representation as the whole of Europe does. This isn’t to say there is no such thing as individualism, but it is of a different sort — Rosseau and the noble savage, or the idea of the Holy Roman Empire (a republic of monarchs if there ever was one) or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The emphasis on community, tribe, or volk runs deep and still does today. It would be utterly impossible to impose an American understanding of governance on Europe (much less Iraq or Afghanistan, but I digress…)
When the left argues on anarchism of the right, they do so from two perspectives. It is a critique of two sorts: (1) of the American individual’s inclination towards libertarianism, and (2) American society’s inclination towards what is now defined as neo-conservatism, but what earlier generations might have called a Jeffersonian understanding of human nature — the “empire of liberty” that, if only men were freed from the shackles of the past and their government, men would live free and in peace.
What has happened — in the eyes of continental philosophers — has been just the opposite.
Freedom ushered in the Napoleonic Wars.
Freedom overthrew the social order in 1848.
Freedom of governments ushered in the First World War and inaugurated the Second.
Freedom in places such as Russia allowed the “oligarchs” to plunder and eventually settle into power there.
Freedom allowed Islam to supplant Marxism in Afghanistan.
Freedom allowed a stable Ba’athist Iraq to descend into sectarian violence.
Freedom allowed a stable Yugoslavia to descend into sectarian violence.
These things aren’t new. Jefferson’s answer concerning the tree of liberty was his quip on how these events should be treated, but for the vast population of Europe who had to live these events on the others side of the Atlantic moat, stability trumped freedom — and still does — because the alternative is war, violence, and the extinction of civilization.
So back to Burke and the smaller moat of the English Channel. The analytic tradition (of which Burke was most certainly not a part of) which sprang up in the English-speaking world tends to treat these problems in a much more compartmental manner than our continental brethren, who treat these problems somewhat holistically. This compartmentalism *is* the problem for much of continental Europe. No context, no value, no possible way to arrive at true meaning (and not just a mere answer, but meaning).
So there are several form of anarchy that continental European philosophy is utterly compelled to resist. It isn’t just the ontological questions of society (big word: philosophy of being and meaning) but it is also the teleological (big word: ends) orientation of an individual. Short way of putting it is this: mankind is an animal, and when presented with the chance, he will find it easier to take what he could otherwise grow.
Now Burke would have wholeheartedly agreed with the latter. “Life is nasty, brutish, and short,” argued Hobbes and the long thread of social contract theorists. The only way to protect our society was to surrender our rights to the government (Locke emphatically argues this in the Second Treatise — Chap. 9 section 131, and the reason why it was placed on the Vatican’s Index of Forbidden Books). The struggle then was to make sure the Leviathan state grew as slowly as it could, in order to prevent the violent overthrows of revolution that disrupted the peace.
Burke’s prescriptions only go halfway though. Most conservatives in America would argue that our rights and liberties can never be surrendered to government. In fact, government is designed to protect those rights, and any so-called “rights” we would infer that government prohibits aren’t really liberties at all, but license opposed to liberty just as surely as tyranny is.
If you believe that, then congratulations. You are an adherent to Catholic natural law philosophy, and in a long tradition of thinkers and saints who have believed the same for centuries.
Here is where the former criticism of “anarchist” should really be fought. To this understanding of a government that protects and does not subordinate rights, the continental European screams “AHA!” — there is no possible way this can exist! We’re only inviting (wait for it…) anarchy!!! Oh, Americans desperately need to change this…
…and hence why the right wing is labelled by the left as anarchist.
Now obviously the left has been very assiduous to try to change the definitions of the conservative movement, to turn us more towards Burke and away from Jefferson. Oh sure — “lunatic fringe anarchism” sounds terrifying, but that’s because you didn’t unpack (see — we can all be deconstructionists from time to time) what was meant by the phrase.
The idea that we do not surrender rights to government is a radical one in its implementation, but not an old one. Go back to the days of the Holy Roman Empire. Look up the concept of the “liberium veto” and see how deeply individualism ran through Catholic Europe. Study how the Magna Carta came to be, and why your history books used to (they rarely do now) eulogize this document and its importance.
As for our gunman, there’s no question he had problems. Oddly enough, his rantings about language, grammar, and the effects on society aren’t old ones either. It has been a preoccupation of analytic philosophy for years. For the continental philosopher, language is really about the words that have meaning, but the meaning of words as symbols or sounds. Words are products of history; history is the product of history-makers such as men of power, governments, and so forth. The study of language independent of these forces? Anarchy…
Now Burke rarely had a preoccupation with language. He was a politician watching the old political order of centuries dissolve before his eyes. And there’s no question that Burke was an institutionalist who viewed his world in the eyes of Edward Gibbon and the British Empire, the romantic idea of England as the last jewel of a long-dismantled Roman Empire and the lamp of Western Civilization — passed from Greece, to Rome, to Britannia, to her Empire, and eventually to the American Republic.
The most Burke from his perch in London could do against the tyranny of the 19th century French Revolution was to, indeed, resist — but never conquer.
Americans have a distinctly different view. And though our libertarian and sometimes neo-conservative Jeffersonian tendencies are criticized as either naive or “cowboy diplomacy” by more sensible and cultured Europeans (sic), they are ultimately rooted in what George W. Bush rightly deferred to as a Jeffersonian optimism on the condition and abilities of the human person.
That confidence isn’t shared by the left. What they call anarchy, we call liberty. That right there is the argument, and should our generation lose it, the lamp of the West flickers out and dies.
[...] it turned into a short discussion on Foucault, continental philosophy, and the differences between Burkean and Thomis…. From my comments: Burke’s prescriptions only go halfway though. Most conservatives in America [...]
@ Shaun,
I don’t think that the Left is that intellectual anymore. They spout a watered down Marxism that has been spoonfed to them. Frankly Obama et al have never said anything I haven’t heard from garden variety leftist Dems since the 1980s. Ironically they are becoming the reactionaries they decry. However they do worship tyranny in the way that all weak people do.
I think they are that intellectual, or at the very least, they can recite the pseudo-intellectualism poured into empty vessels at any four-year institution across America…
Of course, the same could be said of the American right as well. Long gone are the days of William Buckley… just look at what’s happened to First Things — a travesty if there ever was one and probably one of the last few remaining conservative intellectual literary circles remaining. I honestly can’t think of many more.
@ Shaun,
‘I think they are that intellectual, or at the very least, they can recite the pseudo-intellectualism poured into empty vessels at any four-year institution across America… ”
We are agreeing after all! They aren’t intellectual any more.
Conservatism by its nature doesn’t require the convoluted reasoning that leftism requires since the latter is ahistorical and indifferent to human nature. I do make a distinction between leftism and liberalism since the latter is concerned with the individual.
There aren’t too many conservative intellectuals left either (at least in the rank-and-file)… and I could think of more than a few liberals who can back up their opinions with something approaching intellect vs. regurgitation.
Individualism is an easier argument because it can be summarized very simply: leave me alone. Socialism can be summarized simply as well: all of us together.
Where the balances are struck — if there are any — is not a conversation that many conservatives or liberals in the United States can readily have. Or want to have, IMO.
@Shaun
“Leave me alone..” and “all of us together…” are incomplete sentences rather than summaries. All of us together … to do what? according to whose direction? Leave me alone… to do what? without whose help??
I believe we use the word liberal differently. Again I distinguish it sharply from the leftist. Many liberals were not Marxists or even socialists. Leftists almost always derive their thinking from those sources. I have heard cogent thoughts from liberals never from leftists.
Where the balance should be struck seems congruent with our Constitution; erring on the side of the individual’s rights to the extent possible in society rather than erring on the side of a “collective will” which in reality is nothing more than the whims and greed of a few.
Thanks for an interesting post.
Leave your response