I know I have written a lot recently about my largely fruitless efforts to describe my political and philosophical beliefs ("Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation"), but I only do so because I have recently felt somewhat uncomfortable with the conservative designation. Oh, I definitely still have the same beliefs I always held, though they have obviously matured over time, but at the moment I sometimes find myself wondering if the current conservative movement is moving too far away from the positions with which I feel comfortable. And so, from time to time, I find myself writing these posts, trying to make sense out of my own beliefs, the current state of conservatism, and how the two relate.

This is nothing new. Back in the late 1980's, as I stopped describing myself as an Objectivist and sought a new identity, I began to describe myself as a conservative for the first time. In those days, just after Reagan's tenure ended, there were a considerable number of free market conservatives, as well as a few who were openly libertarian in their beliefs, and it was the existence of this wing of the conservative movement that attracted me. On the other hand, there were also a number of what I call "authoritarian social conservatives", those who seek to use the power of the state to compel obedience to a moral code, whether or not the rights of other are involved, and as they began to gain influence within the Republican party, and the conservative movement in general, I started to wonder if I might not have picked the wrong political designation.

However, despite misgivings, I kept the designation from that day to this. At first, when the Republicans seemed too prone to bad social legislation, I would argue that my choice was the only sensible one, as the Supreme Court almost never repealed bad economic laws, but was quite diligent in protecting individual social freedoms, making it much more dangerous to support liberals than conservatives. Of course that was hardly my only reason for adopting that identity, but it does make clear some of my reluctance to call myself conservative without reservation. ("Economic and Political Power Revisited", "Power - Political and Economic", "Greed Versus Evil") With the movement bouncing back and forth between those more freedom oriented and those more interested in compelling morality and enforcing tradition, I was not sure it was a good fit, only that any other choice was worse.

Over time it seemed the movement finally settled down and by the time of the Contract With America I felt that I was truly at home. Yes, there were still some social conservative hanging about the fringes, and a few of those calling themselves paleo-cons and pushing something resembling 19th century mercantilism mixed with some strange blend of nationalism and labor unionism ("Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "Beware Populist Deception"), but by and large the conservatives seemed to have settled on being the defenders of individual freedom, fiscal restraint and small government. (They may have failed in practice, but at least in theory they were certainly as close to my beliefs as the conservative movement ever got.)
 
Of course, over the years, the Republican party, despite nominal conservative leanings, suffered the fate of all successful parties and began to compromise too much, accept too many supporters who shared too few of its beliefs, and, as the Republicans became less conservative, the conservatives too began to fragment, and once more the struggle began to define what was and was not a conservative.

And that would be fine if that were all it was. I could easily weather another struggle for the soul of conservatism. If the right side won, I would be happy, if not, then I would move on. But this is something more than that. Ever since 2000, and the birth of the Angry Left, I have noticed a change within the right. As the left let its ugliest aspects show following the defeat of Gore, the right, or part of the right, allowed its ugliest aspects to show as well. ("A Quick Thought Inspired By Gibbon") Not only did the right begin to adopt the futile "pragmatic" approach of the left, or the "win at all costs" mentality which is the mortal enemy of principles, but the right also adopted many of the juvenile aspects of our culture, the absence of which once allowed me to easily tell right from left. ("Deadly Cynicism", "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity", "Culture and Government", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"", "Our Complete Lack of Creativity", "Hoist By Your Own Petard", "The Fascination with Change", "Trophy Spouses", "Cranky Old Man?", "Why We Need Adults")

And so I am left facing a movement which is fragmented. The Republicans, once the champions of conservatism, have been filled with time servers and careerists who have no firm beliefs. But even among those who identify as conservatives, there are far too many positions. We have the Angry Right, interested in defeating the left even more than standing on principle. ("Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion", "Katrina and BP") We have the moderates, and even the "hard line" conservatives, most of whom hold enough contradictory views that they cannot consistently argue against the positions advanced by the left. ("Inescapable Logic", "Defending Freedom?", "You Lose When You Think You Win", "Why We Lose", "Giving Away the Game", "Of Wheat and Doctors", "Selling Yourself Cheap", "The FairTax's Liberal Assumptions", The Difficulty of Principle", "What We Deserve", "What is Wrong with Us", "Pyrrhic Victories") We have the paleo-cons, whose beliefs seem to have very little in common with any modern version of conservatism. ("A Passing Thought", "The Political Spectrum", "The Best Historical Example", "Rethinking the Scopes Trial") And we have the social conservatives, some of whom who often seem willing to sell out individual freedoms provided it means they get to call the shots. (Please, don't think I am speaking of those who simply respect tradition. I mean here those who would use the state to enforce their own personal code of behavior.)

Beyond that we have a large mass of conservatives who seem to drift between the various poles. Most of them are angry at the Obama victory, and for good reason, but sometimes they allow this anger to push them into arguing positions they should not touch. Similarly, many know that the left is wrong on almost every position, but they have also not yet managed to disabuse themselves of the belief that liberalism is more "compassionate", and, as a consequence, they tend to grant the moral high ground to the left, even when they should concede no such thing. ("Zero Tolerance and Big Government", "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse", "Utopianism and Disaster", "The Threat of Perfection", "How the Government Corrupts Relationships", "Deadly Cynicism", "Self-Serving Cynicism and Our Cultural Immaturity", "Green Kills", "Problematic Arguments", "Tolerance, Agnostic Prostelytizing and Liberal Activism") And then we have those who believe in small government, but have also been so indoctrinated by traditional economics, or by political institutions which have existed for too long, that they cannot imagine doing away with some of the worst aspects of big government.

But such confusion is not the reason I am inclined to ask if I really am a conservative. What worries me is, with such a variety of beliefs from which to choose, at the moment it seems the ones with which I agree the least are the ones making the most headway. Whether in the form of implausible rumors about Obama being accepted by those who should know better, or champions of small government proposing far reaching elimination of rights to resolve the hot button topic of the day, it seems the consistent, principled conservatives, those who hold strictly to the individual and his right to chart his own course, are the people heard the least these days, while those arguing inconsistent populism, throwing red meat to the crowds, are becoming the leaders of popular opinion and, as a consequence, are being allowed to define what conservatism is.

Now I am sure some are about to ask me why I don't just become a libertarian. After all, my beliefs seem closer to libertarian than anything else. But, as I wrote in "Why I Am Not A Libertarian" and "The Benefits of Federalism", big-L Libertarianism is objectionable for many reasons. (cf "Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives") First and foremost because I find it absurd to attempt to enforce freedom from above. The libertarian approach, creating a national party to take office and then force people to be free, seems ludicrous. "Top down freedom" will not work. In fact, as I wrote elsewhere, I would rather see not a single libertarian reform, if we could have instead a return to true federalism. If we could just manage to return control to the states, over time, as experience provided the hard lessons that federalism makes possible, I am convinced that freedom would gradually win out. Oh, the solutions might differ from place to place, as there is no single absolutely correct answer, but overall I think federalism is the best way to achieve a lasting, durable freedom. On the other hand, Libertarian's liberty, being imposed from above by a single administration, would be very fragile, capable of being destroyed the instant another ideology took office. That sort of "revolution" might have dramatic appeal and win over those who want to save the world, but the slow, gradual freedom we win step by step is more certain and much more durable. ("The Virtue of Humility", "In Praise of Slow Changes", "Predictability", "Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism")

The other problem I have with libertarians, and partly why I consider myself conservative, is that libertarians sometimes confuse liberty with license. Simply because we accept that something is legal does not mean we have to exempt it from criticism. For example, while I believe that our drug laws need reform ("Drug Legalization", "Unintended Consequences II"), I also can say that drug abuse is a bad thing. The libertarians, on the other hand, often go to great lengths to not openly criticize groups they protect, be it NORML or NAMBLA, and, as a result, they come across, at best, as peculiar intellectuals out of touch with reality championing villains to prove a point, to, at worst, stoners and molesters hiding behind a political movement. They seem willing only to see things as politically permissible or impermissible, and refuse to go beyond that and apply a moral test as well, and it often leads them to very bizarre positions.

On the other hand, I am hardly proposing we should adopt the position of some social conservatives, using the state to impose their own moral vision upon others. ("The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "Culture and Government") I realize that is often what prevents libertarians from making a moral stand, their own confusion that convinces them that making a moral stand would require they also ask that stand be enforced by law. But that does not follow. I am convinced one can impose a moral code without having recourse to the state. ( "Volunteer Fireman, Barn Raisings and Government", "Private Charity", "Private Charity Take Two", "Liberalism's False Dichotomy", "In Defense of Standards", "Addenda to "In Defense of Standards"") In the past, many aspects of society were controlled partly or wholly by the simple application of social pressure, and there is no reason that would not work again. ("Shame and Behavior", "Our Rude Behavior", "Social Controls", "A Rational Approach to Punishment", "Fair or Functional?", "Crime, Insanity, Incompetence, and IQ", "Sex Offender Registry", "Not Completely One Sided", "A Very Brief Thought") There is no need to bring in the state to enforce standards, all we must do is agree that we will expect others to abide by certain standards. That alone will often be enough to bring about rather dramatic change.

But that brings me back to my original question, am I a conservative or not? My radical defense of individual freedom and extreme opposition to excessive government seem clearly conservative positions, as does my belief that standards should be upheld by society, as well as my conviction that traditions should be respected. ("All Life in a Day, or, How Our Mistaken View of History Distorts Our Understanding of Events" ,"A Possible Designation", "The Threat of Perfection") However, I do not know if that is enough. There are so many strange ideas floating about, passing themselves off as conservative, that I am unsure what the majority of conservatives believe.

I know with my extreme positions on economics, money and bureaucracy I am likely to be in the minority of any group for the foreseeable future. (Though I hope one day to be considered mainstream.) However, even accepting that I will always be somewhere on the periphery, I just can't figure out if I am somewhere on the periphery of conservatism, or if I am a member of the fringe of some other belief.

POSTSCRIPT

As I am discussing my beliefs, perhaps I should offer a concise description of those beliefs. Rather than write them once more, I refer interested readers to  "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Why I Am Not A Libertarian", "The Benefits of Federalism", "An Analogy For Government", "A Simple Proposal", "A True Conservative Platform", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II",  "Greed Versus Evil ", "Fairness and the Free Market", "The Limits of "Scientific" Management" and "Planning For Imperfection". It is also probably beneficial to read my serial essays making up "Liberalism, Its Origins and Consequences".