Conservatism and the Status Quo

(Editor's note: This is the first segment in a two part series.)

What does it mean to be a conservative? Why must the status quo not be casually discarded?

It is informative to reminisce about the presidential election of 1912, which has come to define the ideologies of the national political parties as presently constituted. The Republican Party preferred to field a losing candidate, rather than gamble on one who would “radicalize” its “traditional” (i.e. – conservative) platform. Better to lose the election, regroup and use the lawful mechanisms available in our democracy to obstruct and wait it out until the next election.  Doesn't this sound all too familiar?  In the 2012 national election the party’s conservative base could not bring itself to go “all in” on the more moderate ideas of its presidential nominee. This ensured President Obama’s re-election to a second term.

The election of 1912 is a case study in how seemingly impossible the task of upsetting the status quo. The Republican nominee, President Taft, the unpopular conservative incumbent, merely tolerated the futile contest, viewing former president Theodore Roosevelt’s break from the Republican Party and third-party Progressive insurgency as a challenge to “the principles of the party … the retention of conservative government and conservative institutions.” Although he doubted even T.R.’s ability to pull off a long shot victory, Mr. Taft knew he was not likely to win that election, either. He didn’t. The national election and the one following would be thrown to Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.

1912 marked the first use of a phrase that would re-enter the American political vocabulary in criticism to the policies of Republican Party conservatism under the Reagan administration nearly 70 years later. T.R. had remarked at a campaign speech that “The Republican proposal is only to give prosperity to (wealthy industrialists) and then to let it trickle down.”

In the ensuing century, there can be no mistaking that the Republican Party has remained firmly within the control of an entrenched, affluent, conservative, some say reactionary base, squarely in support of the status quo. This is both sweeping as it is powerful.

The ordinary citizen who talks with five people who call themselves a “conservative” these days will surely receive five different definitions of that political term. For example, when I think of conservative, the idea is of small, frugal, debt-free government with the freedom to enjoy individual pursuits without the interference of government. That’s what Jefferson had in mind. It is the kind of conservatism that Republicans have been preaching, but have been remiss in their practice, for at least the past 40 years. The more recent variety would also add a healthy dose of militarism.

So, what is a conservative? According to Wikipedia, conservatism is defined as follows:

A political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.  Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

A more moderate definition was pronounced upon seasoned reflection late in life by the legendary Coke Stevenson, the 20th century self-made rancher beloved as “Mr. Texas” back home. He put it this way:

A conservative --- he’s one who holds things together.  He shouldn’t fight all progressive movements, but he should be the balance wheel to hold the movement to where it won’t get out of hand.

Proponents point out that conservatism supports the larger, desirable idea of a common culture or identity, who we are as a people. Hard earned and built with the blood and sweat of prior generations, that culture must continue to evolve deliberately, upon consensus. It must not be casually discarded. In its simplest sense, it’s an argument of order and control over chaos. The point certainly has great validity.

Consequently, perhaps, whenever it perceives an opening, the Republican Party has attempted to take measures designed to grind the wheels of progress and change to a halt, preserving the status quo or even rolling it back. Of course, the same argument in reverse can be made against its main targets: T.R.’s activist, Progressivism; F.D.R.’s New Deal; Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the civil rights movement of the 1960s; affirmative action and a woman’s right to choose, among others. The administration of President Obama and the progressive agenda he seeks to implement also lie directly within its targeted scope.

In fact, given the strength of the status quo’s gravitational pull lined up against him, it is no small wonder that President Obama has been able to make good on any pre-election campaign promises of change. This is especially true in the case of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the new law commonly known as Obamacare. This major national healthcare reform legislation is a progressive prize of historical magnitude to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. Its passage had escaped every reform-minded leader who attempted it, dating back to T.R. more than 100 years ago. Somehow, somewhere, T.R. must be smiling down upon us.

(The second and concluding segment in this two part series features T.R.’s views of the "true conservative," the balance of competing forces required to manufacture change and the "triumph of conservatism.")

-Michael D’Angelo

From Popes to Puppies at Play

What is it about possession of a bone that makes human beings different, but not necessarily better, than man’s best friend?

It is intriguing and sometimes fun to consider the possibilities of tomorrow. For example, will the Arab Spring, so called, achieve the potential objective of many hopeful observers? Commenting on the path to peace, Shimon Peres, the 89-year-old president of Israel, was recently quoted:

The great and intriguing debate in Egypt today is about ... whether to give women freedom or not. It is here that the Arab Spring will be judged. President Obama asked me who I think is preventing democracy in the Middle East. I told him, 'The husbands.' The husband does not want his wife to have equal rights. Without equal rights, it will be impossible to save Egypt, because if women are not educated, the children are not educated. People who cannot read and write can’t make a living. They are finished.

Can we detect a comparable theme unfolding in Christianity's Roman Catholic Church? Will the church experience a Vatican Spring? Or slip further into an ice age of irrelevance? After all, its mistreatment of women over the centuries has been the stuff of legend, its problems stemming largely from this unnatural phenomenon. The first papal resignation in nearly 600 years is concentrating new light on a fundamental crisis which many feel may be nearing a head.

As the cardinals gather at the Vatican enclave to select the new pope, the ordinary citizen is not misled by what one church scholar refers to as “the media hype of grandly staged papal mass events or by the wild applause of conservative Catholic youth groups.” As was the case with the Wizard of Oz character villain, the infamous man behind the curtain, “behind the facade the whole house is crumbling. In this dramatic situation the church needs a pope who’s ... open to the concerns of the Reformation, to modernity.”

Relevant to the possibilities of tomorrow, the ordinary citizen would be well served to consider an interlude. Watching the simple behavior of puppies at play can be an interesting form of entertainment. Acknowledging the object of their behavior in a larger context can be enlightening. Are we able to learn anything from these creatures, who have never read a book? Give them a bone to play with, and they’ll squabble over it. But, it is usually more playful than serious. In a short while, the two former combatants can be found sound asleep, snuggling close with one another. They seem secure in the knowledge that their treasure will keep, that warmth and closeness mean so much more to them.

By contrast, when two humans decide they want the same thing, whatever the object, they will both cling, rigidly determined that each is right, and has a greater entitlement. But has either of the puppies asleep at our feet lost the treasure he tried so hard to keep? No, it lays but a few feet away, not a treasure, but an object of play. What is their contentment? Perhaps, it is the friend who plays this game with them, yet is still willing to snuggle, over and over again. And why cannot humans be the same way? Why can we not learn the great lesson here: that things are not precious, it is the friendships that are dear. For what good will this thing do, this precious bone, if in the end we find ourselves left completely alone?

Human beings have intellectual capacity, the ability to reason; communicate verbally, some on a high level. Scientists say this distinguishes and elevates humans from domesticated animals, like dogs and cats. That being the case, what is it about possession of a bone that makes human beings different, but not necessarily better, than man’s best friend?

-Michael D’Angelo