Is The Right Conservative?
I find the recent rise of populist rhetoric in our civil discourse a bit troubling. Add a strong sense of entitlement within the Tea Party movement and other right-wing extremist groups, and the question, “Is the right wing conservative?” demands examination. I have spoken previously of why populism does not have conservative roots, so there’s no point covering that ground again. Instead, I would like to illustrate parallels between recent statements and the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French liberal whose work – according to many conservatives of the day – paved the way for the Jacobins to unleash The Reign of Terror.
Let’s start with a video that became much more interesting this week, with the sentencing of Scott Roeder, the man convicted of murdering Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. It is an interview by Dave Leach, an anti-abortion zealot, from 1996, and they very quickly discriminate between God’s law and societal law. It starts getting good at 2:10.
Now, the assertion of Providential law certainly seems conservative, and, in fact, Edmund Burke considered the belief that Providential law must inform the laws of mankind to be a cornerstone of conservative thought (see Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”.) Unfortunately, that is not what is being discussed in the interview. Instead, Leach and Roeder are dismissing societal law as invalid, in favor of something more fundamental: whereas conservative philosophy uses Providential law to inform statute and attempt to reflect God’s will, Roeder claims the existence of Providential law nullifies any attempts made by society to impose law. What he is actually claiming is the existence of a natural law that can only exist in the absence of government.
That is a pretty radical concept, but it isn’t new. Let’s step into the way-back machine and experience a bit of expository writing from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who took the French intellectual world by storm with his 1755 essay, “A Discourse Upon The Origin And Basis Of Inequality Among Men”.
“…when I see free-born animals through a natural abhorrence of captivity dash their brains out against the bars of their prison; when I see multitudes of naked savages despise European pleasures, and brave hunger, fire and sword, and death itself to preserve their independency; I feel that it belongs not to slaves to argue concerning liberty.”
Rousseau argued that increasing societal organization infringes upon man’s natural liberty. At best, we placed ourselves in a state of voluntary slavery in order to achieve security, shelter and food, things that existed without shortage in our savage – or natural – state. While conservatives asserted that societal inequality was God’s design, Rousseau blamed the underlying structures for inequality, and illustrated, in his essay, its development as savage man began to coalesce into small groups, clans and later societies. By claiming that driving a car is a right that is not linked to the responsibility of licensing, Scott Roeder is channeling Rousseau and asserting that liberty can only be achieved in the natural state.
Not surprisingly, genuine conservatives are pretty horrified by this philosophy. Again, from Kirk:
“Infatuation with natural right in the practical concerns of government must end in anarchy, in a fiery and intolerant individualism. Even parliaments cannot endure if the doctrinaires of natural rights are triumphant, for any form of representative government is in some degree an invasion of absolute liberty.”
I hear you saying, “Michael, not everyone on the right is as whacked as Scott Roeder.” And I agree. So let’s turn our attention to my new favorite source of amusement, the Tea Party. Despite my mocking tone (it’s a character flaw), extreme ideological movements like the Tea Party deserve serious attention for the simple matter that they create political gravity wells which influence the overall debate. Consider the open courting by GOP leadership, and Sarah Palin’s recent comment that the Tea Party is “…a beautiful grassroots movement that is putting government back on the side of the people,” and you begin to understand the magnitude of that influence.
Of course, we know the official party line mission statement from their website. But being for fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets doesn’t tell us much. After all, I believe in those things, and most people who support the Tea Party consider me a Marxist. Instead, I look to their actions to determine their political philosophy and, again, we find it occupying a surprising space in the political spectrum.
We’ve already discussed the idea that society is slavery, but it’s not necessary to go that far – the Tea Party has saved us the trouble. We can start with the notion that taxes are tyranny, or any other legislation with which they disagree. Next, consider that the possession of arms is not only a right, but there is a belief that these arms may be used for seditious purposes outside the scope of a state militia. You don’t have to dig very deeply into a group like the Oath Keepers before you discover that there is something extralegal being envisioned. Lastly is the belief that sometimes – despite the perfection and sanctity of our political process – it is okay to hit the reset button and throw everything away. Each of these points, while appearing conservative on the surface, shares an underlying belief in a natural state, an existence that supersedes societal structures, and is given priority even when it is done in the name of those societal structures. That is how an Oath Keeper or Tea Partyer can talk about upholding the Constitution by forcibly removing constitutionally-elected officials from office.
Well, I’ve kept you long enough; it is a blog, after all. I hope I have at least made a first effort at pointing out some of the absurdity of our far right politics in America, and demonstrating that their pedigree does not descend from the conservative movement that is their namesake. I am not a conservative, but I believe that it is important for liberals and progressives to deny the far right the use of that moniker, for it deceives many in this country with a false sense of credibility and tradition. Words matter.
As Russell Kirk noted, “The world is growing more enlightened, popular opinion asserts; and there is some truth in the belief that newspapers, magazines and circulating libraries have made mankind wiser; but with the pride that accompanies a little new learning comes the peril of popular vanity, the hazard that all old opinions may be discarded.”
In closing, I will leave you with the words of John Adams, one of America’s first conservatives. Sneering at Rousseau’s praise of natural savagery, Adams disagrees that,
“…knowledge is corruption; that arts, sciences and taste have deformed the beauty and destroyed the felicity of human nature, which appears only in perfection in the savage state – the children of nature.”
