Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:15:34 PM
Sometimes when I write arguments against
protectionism, or
social conservatives, or when I argue a point that goes against some other
sacred cow of some segment of the conservative movement, I wonder if I should do so. And I am not alone, I have read a number of conservatives arguing for greater "understanding" among the various wings of the conservative movement.
Now, I will be the first to agree that we need to make allowances for
other beliefs, and to be prepared for some compromise. On the other hand, I do not think that includes the acceptance of outright error. Even if we are prepared to allow for differences of opinion about the nature and function of the state, should a conservative of any stripe make a statement which is clearly in error, we must be prepared to argue for the truth. Compromise does not mean embracing falsehoods.
And that is why I continue to argue against things such as protectionism. While I allow that conservatives may differ on basic questions such as the purpose of the state or religious beliefs, there are questions which are open to verification. And the claims of the protectionists are such claims. They argue that national industries need to be protected to ensure prosperity, but it can be shown objectively that this is not true. I am willing to accept different opinions on some questions, but logical proof is not one of those questions. If a theory fails on its own terms, then it simply cannot be true.
Why argue? Why not just close ranks and stay silent on these disagreements for political reasons? Because we are conservatives.
The liberals,
as I have argued elsewhere, establish truth by reference to their leaders. We are conservatives, our philosophy is founded explicitly on a dedication to individual pursuit of the truth. Why have freedom of speech? Why have limited government? Because we believe the truth matters and that each individual should seek it free from state interference.
To surrender a dedication to rigorous search for the truth in the interest of grabbing a few votes is to abandon our most important principles.
POSTSCRIPT
I would not be surprised if someone noted that I did violate my commitment to compromise in the case of
coercive social conservatives. And that is true. While I believe we should allow some compromise with conservatives who differ one some basic questions, I do draw the line at those who see state coercion as a good thing. In my mind the coercive social conservative are much closer to the left than to true conservatives, and their beliefs simply are too far outside the range of conservatism to make them a viable member of any conservative coalition.
To those who disagree, pointing to their similarity to social conservatives, I have to ask, is Jesse Jackson conservative because he is a minister? Reverend Wright? William Sloane Coffin? Father Pfleger? Did Hitler's appeals to tradition make him a conservative? Or Mussolini's? Just because someone shares superficial traits with conservatism does not make them a conservative.
There are certain fundamental positions upon which we must insist. To do anything else would risk turning our desire to build a coalition into a surrender of our values.