Conservatism with a Soul

Straight AheadI spoke previously of the relationships between liberalism and Christianity, between evangelicals and the Religious Right, and between Christianity and the left-wing fringe, which was an essay I inserted after finding out about the unfortunate publication by our Presbyterian Publishing Corporation of the book by a theology professor linkig George Bush and the U.S government to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Now, I want to close this train of thought, for the time being, by discussing the kind of conservatism that we need in this country, and the kind of conservatism that Christians should support. What we need is conservatism with a soul. To put it another way, I would call it a conservatism with virtue. I will not call it "compassionate conservatism" because that is a subjective term which suggests that true conservatism is not compassionate. True conservatism is neither compassionate nor lacking in compassion. It is a way of understanding the role of government based on certain political and legal principles, just as liberalism is. I believe conservatism more nearly approximates Christian principles of government; but of course, for the non-Christian, that argument would carry little weight. The true strength of genuine conservatism is that it supports and advocates certain virtues in society as a whole. The moment it wanders from these virtues, however, it becomes simply another group of empty phrases and self-serving words. Conservatism with a soul transcends greed. Oh, it definitely speaks of "enlightened self-interest," acknowledging thereby that self-interest is a major motivating factor in the best of us. But self-interest without enlightenment, without considering the consequences for other groups and for society as a whole, is not truly self-interest, but short-sighted selfishness. Conservatism with a soul is frankly wary of "Big Business," and multi-national corporations. As Ayn Rand points out in one of her writings, it is one thing to be "pro free enterprise," and quite another to be "pro business." Globalism may be a fact of life in the "Information Age" of the 21st century; and it may even prove to be a significant check on rogue states and Islamic fascism. Still, those who value republicanism and the public virtues of the past are not at all comfortable with the wider implications of the "one-world economy." Conservatism with a soul is wary also of the fever pitch at which acquisitions and mergers are squeezing independent business. I must also say that as I see it, conservatism with a soul is not libertarianism. Government is not the enemy. As constituted today, of course, government does not appear often to be friendly to the virtues of the past; but it can and has served those virtues well in previous generations. The goal is not to discredit government, but to recall it to its right function of protecting the national security, and the life and property of those whom it governs--the citizens. Conservatism with a soul respects the virtues of hard work, civility, honesty, civic and personal responsibility, and the neighborliness that used to be such a hallmark of the American landscape. We choose compassion over pity, individualism over statism, individual charity over socialism and welfare, and those policies which encourage self-respect and self-improvement over policies which encourage dependence and self-destruction. No doubt, other complementary virtues could be added to this list, but hopefully this is suggestive. Conservatism with a soul rejects most legislation which seeks to protect us from our own foolishness, preferring instead to let us grow up and learn how to be adults. And last of all, while many conservatives profess no belief in God--Ayn Rand being among them--it is illogical truly to be a conservative without a belief in Almighty God. True freedom must be freedom under God. Without a consciousness of God, there is no real protector of freedom. As Francis Schaeffer said, without a consciousness of the Christian worldview, freedom "will destroy us." I would sum up my personal understanding like this. As one writer has said: "I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon if I can."