Preserving process is no longer enough. The Right must recognize that the ends can matter as much as the means.
The baseline question for conservatives never changes: “What are we trying to conserve?” Nor does the answer, which always begins, “The things that have enabled our society to flourish.” But that’s where the conversation gets interesting.
People in different times and places have understood “flourishing” differently. That’s because they have faced different challenges and opportunities and have had different religions, traditions, governing arrangements, and economic systems. As a result of these differences, there is no single definition of a society’s success. Conservatism meant something different in 15th century France than it did in 18th century Russia or 20th century Iran. And these differences explain why American conservatism has evolved over time. John Adams’ conservatism was different from Abraham Lincoln’s which was different from William McKinley’s which was different from Robert Taft’s.
For about 50 years, from the middle of the 20th century to the dawn of the 21st, there was general agreement about the contours of U.S. conservatism. Above all, what distinguished it was its commitment to preserving processes over specific things. In other places and times, conservatives have generally aimed to protect specific aspects of society, like the monarchy or the church or the caste system. But American conservatives largely aimed to preserve rules of the road or procedures via a collection of -isms. These included liberalism, democratic-republicanism, communitarianism, capitalism, federalism, localism, and originalism.
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Catalyst
______________________
Andy Smarick is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Follow him on Twitter here.
Photo by SimpleImages/Getty Images
