Symposium: “Modern Conservatism” Is as American as It Gets

This article is in response to Go Radical or Go Home and is part of the symposium on “Conservatism: What’s Wrong with It and How Do We Make It Right?”

The problem with George Neumayr’s assessment comes down to his screed against “modern conservatism.” Sure, it sounds like a paradoxical term. Edmund Burke isn’t supposed to be chic. But Neumayr has actually stumbled upon a term that appropriately captures the uniqueness of “conservatism” in America. We should be championing “modern conservatism,” not voting its proponents off the island.

Some American conservatives are hardcore Burkeans, while others argue that Burke’s defense of the French monarchy has no place in the United States. These debates are invigorating. If we wanted to borrow the PC jargon of Higher Ed, we might even say that these debates boost our “diversity.” I worry that Neumayr wrongly leverages his problem with the Diversity Industry at large against the variety of people upholding elements of intellectual “conservatism.” Conservatives have enough trouble overcoming accusations of “extremism” from the Left without purists purging our ranks from within. Ted Cruz’s far-fetched attempt to split the Republican Party and defund ObamaCare is a depressing case in point.

Conservatives today are an interesting crossbreed of civic republicans and classical- liberals. Like the republicans who shaped the early history of this country, we believe, alongside Aristotle, that the self-governing republic is a vehicle toward realizing “the good.” But, like the classical-liberals of the Enlightenment whose ideals also founded America, we fear the tyranny of the majority and believe that the law should, as neutrally as humanly possible, uphold the rights of individuals.

The current court cases over Obamacare’s contraception mandate provide an excellent illustration of these two political traditions at work. The citizens and employers who object to the mandate tend to be devout Christians; they believe in an overarching “good” and hope to convince their neighbors of the same. They certainly lean toward the civic republican side of the spectrum. But, in order to uphold their freedom of conscience against a populace that’s largely hostile to their views on birth control, these citizens have appealed to the First Amendment and the classical-liberal construction of “individual rights.” This is a quintessentially American move. Indeed, the Harvard political philosopher Michael Sandel argues that this combination of classical republicanism and liberalism is what gave way to American constitutionalism.

In this view, the writing of the U.S. Constitution was philosophically serious but also philosophically pragmatic and savvy. Would Neumayr label the Founding Fathers sellouts? I hope not.