Conservativism in North America is Dead

Originally written in November 2008

"Conservativism is Dead". It's a statement you've probably heard before from talking heads on American television. But they're not talking about true conservativism. They're talking about Reagan conservativism, which is small-L liberalism with religious social conservativism bolted on. That conservativism ("modern conservativism") is alive and well, though in recent years in the US it's been supplanted by neo-conservativism, which is a different beast entirely. Our current Conservative minority government here in Canada is a modern conservative government.

It's traditional conservativism that's dead.

George Grant wrote "Lament for a Nation" nearly half a century ago, arguing that traditional conservativism died along with the Diefenbaker government. Grant was somewhat premature. We did get one more traditional conservative Prime Minister (Joe Clark) and one bizarre hybrid of traditional and modern conservatives Prime Minister (Brian Mulroney) before traditional conservativism in Canada truly died. The US's final traditional conservative president was Richard Nixon.

I suppose one has to define traditional conservativism before one can lament its passing, and it's a bit of a tricky proposition. Modern political parties and political ideologies (sometimes separate, sometimes the same) have reoriented themselves along a number of different vectors (apologies for the pretentious academia-speak) over the past 75 years. Political parties generally define themselves along two lines - economic and social. Small-L liberal (as in liberal ideology and not Liberal Party policy) economics generally refers to laisez-faire economics - the belief that the government should participate in the economic system of the nation as little as possible. Conservative (again, small-c) economic policy generally demands that the government have a guiding role in the economy, regulating business to protect the interests of workers, the environment, and the general health of the nation, but still running essentially a free-market system. Socialist economic policy generally dictates that the state have a controlling stake in the economy.

Social policy is even more muddled than economic policy these days. Liberal social policy generally dictates that people can do whatever they like, as long as it doesn’t significantly impinge upon the freedoms of others. The government should take little role in society, neither promoting cultural growth nor restricting social freedoms like choice of sexual partner or decision to use drugs. Traditional conservativism generally is interested in promoting family (that phrase is so loaded now and so distorted by the American "conservatives" that I’ll have to come back to it) and culture, and providing a moderate amount of control over social freedoms - restricting access to drugs and activities that are generally harmful and enforcing through law many cultural norms. Modern social conservatism is a beast - interfering in people's social freedoms (fags are evil! No gay marriage!) while denying government support of culture and community.

Briefly regarding "support for the family" - this concept in the Henri Bourassa Quebec-Nationalist-Conservative tradition meant support for communities-as-families, providing a strong social network for individuals in communities so that they felt pride in their homes and in their nations, and could feel supported by those institutions. It didn't have anything to do with "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! A marriage is between One Man and One Woman" bigotry.

Anyway, back on track.

If you break down our modern Canadian parties, they look something like this:

Conservatives: Liberal economic policy. Social policy in the party is divided between social conservatives and libertarians. Social conservatives seem to be the dominant force in the party today.

Liberals: Conservative economic policy, liberal social policy.

NDP: Socialist economic policy, traditional conservative social policy.

There's more nuance, of course. Environment has traditionally been a conservative issue (Teddy Roosevelt established the national parks system in the US, Nixon established the E.P.A.), for example. But generally, traditional conservative principles have splintered across parties, and few are left within the party carrying the "Conservative" banner.

I want to be able to vote for a party that believes in the free market, but not to such a blinding extent that they refuse to see the problems with a laisez-faire system and work to ensure business is properly regulated. I want to vote for a party that promotes community, not just through social programs but through support of the arts, support for local organizations and promotion of ethical conduct. I want to be able to vote for a party in the tradition of Joe Clark, John Deifenbaker, and John A. MacDonald. It makes me sad that I can't, federally. The Liberal party is sort-of similar in generalities to traditional Conservativism, but they lack the "conservative mindset"; the idea that one ought to take a conservative (small-c) approach to problems facing the nation - to exercise care, caution, and prudence, rather than rushing headlong into the future in the name of progress.

Provincially, the current Liberals are about as close to a traditional conservative party we have in Canada. They fall closer to liberal economic policy, but since the budget was balanced and they were reelected in 2005, the party has drifted much more towards conservative social policy (by which I mean NOT social conservativism, just to enforce the point, but to a strong support of community programs, arts funding etc..) while advocating a generally conservative view of the future of BC - spend wisely, project cautiously, build the province and make it better through planning and careful thought rather than throwing a bunch of money at the problem or just dismantling government.

Both the US and Canada could do with a true Conservative federal party. Especially the US, whose post-communist veneration of the individual above all else is bordering on ridiculous. I guess that's what we've lost in the Conservative movement over the last 50 years- a sense of obligation towards local communities has been replaced by the elevation of the individual to the highest level of importance.