Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism

Freedomvrights.com

Philosophy Pages - Articles by Dr Jack Kerwick

Home

Neo-conservatism v. Classical Conservatism

Dr Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

For all of the references to it, both positive and (as is more often than not the case) negative, there have been relatively few attempts at anything like a serious definition of neo-conservatism. I would like to rectify this situation by submitting my own account of this enigmatic phenomenon. In so doing, I will show how it differs from what I will call, for lack of a better term, “classical conservatism,” a tradition of thought that can be said to have basically begun with Edmund Burke.

In order to define any tradition or school of thought, we must look beyond the substance of the positions that its adherents have taken on various issues to the formal assumptions that made possible those positions. Logically, the latter precede the former. For example, any given utilitarian thinker may agree with a Roman Catholic natural law theorist that abortion is generally immoral. That is, substantively they agree. But in terms of the formal assumptions to which they subscribe, the reasons by which they arrived at their conclusions, they couldn’t be further apart from one another. The utilitarian opposes abortion because he believes that the general practice of abortion will in the long run cause more pain than pleasure for the greatest number of people. In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic natural law theorist opposes it because he thinks that abortion is inherently wrong, irrespective of consequences. It is possible, even if unlikely, that this utilitarian and this natural lawyer will agree on most moral and political issues, yet they represent two rival traditions of thought. What distinguishes each tradition from the other are its formal suppositions.

With this (admittedly imperfect) distinction between the formal and the substantive in mind, we can turn to “neo-conservatism” and “classical conservatism.” Neo-conservatives and classical conservatives may very well share positions on some issues. Perhaps this is why neo-conservatives frequently regard themselves as simply “conservative.” But the formal assumptions from which they begin are logically incompatible with one another. That neo-conservatism and classical conservatism are as distinct from each other as the utilitarian and natural law traditions can be seen from their respective answers to questions concerning the basic character of reason/knowledge, morality, and the State.

Reason/knowledge. Neo-conservatives, whether they explicitly admit as much, endorse a trans-cultural, trans-historical conception of Reason. Reason, on this score, while influenced by tradition, is ultimately capable of rising over and against it. When neo-conservatives (and others, for that matter) approvingly cite Jefferson’s affirmation of “self-evident” truths, this is the model of Reason on which they rely.

Classical conservatives, in contrast, from at least the time of Burke in the eighteenth century, have repeatedly rejected this notion of Reason as a rationalist’s dream. The individual has reason, it is true, but his reason is the product of centuries of tradition. Knowledge consists not in the abstract intellectual apprehension of “self-evident truths,” but in unarticulated feelings, habits, and customs that have become “second nature.”

Morality. Inseparable from the neo-conservative’s abstract, universalistic, tradition-neutral notion of Reason is an equally abstract, universalistic, tradition-neutral conception of morality. Morality is comprised essentially of “principles,” specifically, principles of “natural” or “human right.” Neo-conservatives are as given to the language of “human rights” as are their ideological opponents on the Left. These principles are uniquely accessible to all rational beings.

Classical conservatives, on the other hand, have tended to eschew all talk of “natural rights” and/or “human rights.” Morality is local, tradition-constituted. Whatever principles there may be, they are the offspring of a historically specific, shared way of life, and not its parent: principle stands in relation to practice the way cliff notes relate to the text that they summarize, not the other way around.

The State. Neo-conservatives, like ideologues of various left and right wing persuasions, conceive the State as an “enterprise association.” This is the term that the twentieth century conservative British philosopher Michael Oakeshott used to describe a model of the State on which it is said to exist for the sake of bringing to fruition some premeditated ideal or end, like Freedom, Equality, Virtue, Security, Prosperity, or Democracy. The ideal is held to transcend society, but it is the goal toward the accomplishment of which the resources of citizens must be deployed. At no time is a State more like an enterprise association than during times of war, for it is when a state is at war that government must have every available quantum of power at its disposal in order to insure victory. Also, it is in war that citizens are expected to make a concerted effort to bring about the telos, the purpose, for the sake of which the association exists. This explains why even when a nation is not literally at war, ideologues on both the Right and Left avail themselves of the language of war in order to unify support behind their favored causes (“The War on Poverty,” “The War on Drugs,” “The Cultural Wars,” etc.).

Classical conservatives, in contrast, are unsympathetic to this model of a State. The State, rather, is a “civil association” (again, Oakeshott’s term). Classical conservatives value the individuality and diversity of life forms that have become our way of life in the West, and so they emphatically reject any notion that there is a single supreme end or hierarchy of ends toward which it is government’s responsibility to direct society. Government is important, and it is important that government should be strong, but its functions are few and its chief function is to preserve order.

In conclusion, neo-conservatism really isn’t an expression of conservatism at all. It is a form of Enlightenment liberal rationalism, the sort of liberal rationalism in reaction against which conservatism originally emerged and developed as a distinctive tradition of thought.

Disclaimer: Please note that as a guest contributor to this site, Dr Kerwick does not necessarily, or at all, endorse or share the views expressed on the site, or the views and books of Joseph BH McMillan, and likewise, Freedomvrights.com and Mr McMillan do not necessarily, or at all, endorse or share the views expressed by Dr Kerwick by virtue of his being a guest contributor to this site. We at freedomvrights.com welcome debate on all issues, irrespective of differences of opinion, belief, religion, or political ideology.

Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.

*Philosophy Pages*

A Philosopher hard at work solving the riddles of life.

Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact