I was writing replies to a commenter recently, when I was (not for the first time) amazed at how similar some conservatives sound to the far left. Specifically, this commenter had a conspiracy driven world view, one where big business was conspiring behind the scenes to destroy our sovereignty, and sell us out to international interests. The problem for me was that the poster was not entirely consistent. From his beliefs alone, I was tempted to think his a LaRouche supporter, and his idolizing of FDR may have agreed with that, but then he also kept mentioning "Christian America", which sounds more appropriate to an anti-CFR conspiracy theorist. At that point, it struck me that that the people worrying about "multinational corporations" forcing us into a the NAU are not that easy to distinguish from the the leftists who worry that "robber barons" are going to sell us all into slavery.

It is interesting how often those calling themselves conservatives seem to sound more like left wing extremists.

I know I am not going to make friends here, but I think it is time to finally fight out the question of what it really means to be a conservative. We have "social conservatives", "economic conservatives", "defense conservatives", and on and on. And while most conservatives fall into more than one of those categories, some seem to think that simply belonging to one group allows them to be  considered conservative regardless of what other beliefs they hold.

We hear it all the time. People saying "You can't win elections without the social conservatives" or "How can you say social conservatives aren't really conservatives?" And that sounds fine until you get a Huckabee, pitching a liberal line and claiming his opposition to abortion makes him a conservative. Or some of the Buchananite, anti-NAU groups, spouting as much business hatred as the most radical Democrat, yet claiming conservative credentials because they support the second amendment or believe in G-d.

Many will argue that the "big tent" is necessary to win elections, but I am not really talking about parties or elections here, I have a different point. I don't have any thoughts about parties, we can allow the Republican party to be a big tent, allow in those of all political stripe, all I want is to reserve the use of the word "conservative". We don't need to chase the "social conservatives" out of the party, just tell them that if they support nationalizing industry, being against abortion isn't enough to call them conservative.

I know it will offend a number of people, but I think economic conservative positions are essential to calling anyone conservative. The moment you abandon those positions and embrace big government, as we have seen with George Bush, you inevitably start to drift to the left. You may be the most devout Christian on Earth, but once you accept that the state should take from someone to give to someone else, whether you want to or not, you have opened the door to omnipotent government, and an all powerful state is simply incompatible with conservative beliefs.

Of course, I also think that social conservative views are important¹. We need a common culture, a respect for rights of the individual, and religious freedom. But, again, that goes hand in hand with economic conservative positions. As I said above, once you oppose economic freedom, you embrace big government, and that is inherently opposed to individual rights, respect for the individual, and even religious freedom. It is not logically inevitable, but I challenge anyone to find a totalitarian state that has refrained from intervening in religious affairs. It may not be required that an all-powerful state intervene in religious matters, but it is certainly quite probable it will happen.

Likewise, I think some part of the defense conservative position is required. We can debate how much the nation should intervene, and to what degree we can adopt an isolationist policy, but that we need a potent military, and that we need to intervene in the world at times, seem incontrovertible positions. If the state does not provide a military, or take steps to protect the state, then it is failing in a primary task, defending the rights of citizens against foreign aggression.

For those who think I am simply pushing my own view of conservatism as the only possible definition, that is far from the truth. I would personally want to bend the definition of conservative more strongly toward a libertarian position, defining the state's role as exclusively to protect life, liberty and property, but I do know that one can be conservative and still push for a slightly broader role for the state. I
 would also probably make a federalist position part of the conservative platform, but I do know that one can be quite conservative and yet a proponent of a strong federal government.

No, I am simply trying to exclude those positions now called "conservative", which really do not fit. For example, eight years of compassionate conservative leadership should have shown everyone that being a proponent of strongly activist big government, even when informed by a sincere religious belief, results in more liberalism rather than less. Likewise, no matter how dedicated they are to American culture and to their religious beliefs, the protectionist, anti-business Buchananite² wing is not even "paleo-conservative", they are simply not conservative, their strong fear of business inevitably leads to the big government which is incompatible with a conservative dedication to individual rights.

So, while I would personally push for something along the lines of "A conservative believes that the state exists only to protect the citizens'; rights to life, liberty and property", and I cannot say in good conscience that that belief alone is compatible with conservative thought. But I will say that a conservative must have the following: a belief in individual rights, a dedication to reducing the size and scope of government, a demand for fiscal responsibility, a dedication to religious freedom, and a belief in a strong military³.

I just cannot see anyone who does not embrace at least those minimal traits being truly conservative. They may still be admirable people, may even be allied to the conservative cause, but if they do not share at least those minimal beliefs, I cannot see calling them conservative. We have too long been prone to label anyone who shares even one belief with conservatives, a conservative. It is time we said that, while they may be friends of the conservative movement, there are a few traits that really must be present before we can call someone a conservative. Otherwise, the word loses all meaning.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but has hair like a child in a duck suit, it still isn't a duck.

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. Where I break with social conservatives is the belief of some that the state needs to enforce standards of behavior. As a federalist, I accept that localities can enact such rules (though I would hope they would be local, not federal), but the libertarian in me would also hope that no state would choose to do so. Standards of behavior are best formed by social pressures rather than government edict.

2. I am not actually speaking of Pat Buchanan here so much as his followers. Among those approving of Buchanan is a strange group which adopts a conservative social policy but has essentially the same domestic views as Lyndon LaRouche. It is this group that inspired the essay, as I am very leery of calling any such group "conservative".

3. Yes, I appear to have missed several core tenets of some types of conservative, but I think they can still be satisfied with these definitions.  For example, most who object to losing our culture are more upset that the state is forcing cultures on us, rather than asking that the state protect our culture. By supporting reducing the scope of the state, we will exclude state efforts to enforce multiculturalism. That is only one example, but I think it shows how many other positions are included.

-------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I am sure someone will wonder how I can reconcile my stringency in defining who is and is not a conservative with my lenient treatment of McCain. And to that question I have two answers.

First, I have actually said before that McCain is definitely not a conservative - more than once, actually. So, I have stood by this belief since the beginning, that there are people I may support, but would still not define as conservative.

Second, this is more about semantics than politics. I support McCain as he is the best of a bad lot, not because he is a true conservative. I admit I do sometimes describe him as "the most conservative of those running" or "partially conservative", but, by that, I do not mean he meets these criteria I just set out, only that he is closer to meeting them than his Democrat opponents.

In other words, my support of McCain really has nothing to do with this topic. My support is a matter of pragmatism, while this essay is intended to avoid future confusion, such as debates about whether Huckabee's big government Christianity was really conservative or not.

SECOND ADDENDUM

Immediately after writing this, I realized that many will accuse me of favoring the "economic conservative" position above all others. And I must confess I am guilty as charged. I really do think economic conservative positions are necessary for any other conservative position.

Why?

Because at its heart, I see the conservative position as conservation of the principle of the founders, and their first interest was in protecting individual rights and freedoms. And, if we value freedom, then we cannot surrender any area to the state because it is "just economic". What was the Soviet Union but a massive state funding project?

Perhaps this will help explain my focus on economics. In college I argued with communists who said they did not support Soviet totalitarianism, but would embrace a communism that just handled "economic" matters. I said it would not matter, once you surrender economics, you give up all rights. How? Well, suppose you have an absolute right to free speech, but the state controls all economics. Well, what good is that right, if they refuse to give you paper or pens, or any other way to get out your message? Or if they deny you food and a roof over your head until you stop saying things they don't like?

Controlling economic matters is controlling everything.

And that is why I give primacy to economic conservative issues. If you allow that the state can meddle in economics, then you accept that the state can meddle in anything, and that seems incompatible with any conservative principles.

But feel free to argue with me about this. I expected that writing this would raise quite a few objections.