I recently attended a lecture at the Centennial Institute of Colorado Christian University. Dr. Francis Beckwith, the Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy at the University of Colorado was giving a lecture on “The Future of Conservativism.” Dr. Beckwith holds five earned degrees including the MA and PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and a Master of Juridical Studies from the Washington School of Law in St. Louis. He has published extensively on the topic of Conservatism and is considered a true academic expert.
The lecture lasted about an hour and a half. It was very cerebral. I found that mildly disappointing. One of the most interesting side notes on Dr. Beckwith is that he has recently (~2007) converted from Protestant Evangelicalism to Catholicism. I was hoping to get a better understanding of his personal journey, but that did not happen. He did, however, give us some insights that he claims he has never made public before.
He began the lecture by trying to define Conservatism. Of course, that is nearly impossible to do, but Dr. Beckwith made a very noble effort and gave us considerable insight. In general, Dr. Beckwith sees Conservatism as having a natural inclination against change. There is a presumption that things good and important are unchanging. This results in a pre-analytical (not thought through) devotion to things of the past. When change is thrust upon a Conservative the natural reaction is strongly negative even if they have trouble articulating why. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump has tapped into that natural inclination and often gets the support of Conservatives even when the reasons are thin.
Dr. Beckwith went on to give us four general areas of concern for Conservatism. These were:
- Constitutional Law
- National Security
- Public Morality
- Free Market Economics
Conservatives are drawn to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, a position described in more technical terms as “Originalism.” This matches the mindset of the Conservative in that changes and re-interpretations of our legal system should come along only slowly – if at all. Furthermore, Conservatives naturally hold the Founders and their words in high regard. Hence, their writings were competent and clear. What they said was what they meant and we should not read into them hidden meanings.
In the area of National Security, Conservative support for a strong military grew out of the near disaster of World War II and the protracted global Cold War with Socialist Dictators. The sudden collapse of the USSR left an international leadership vacuum that was too tempting for “Conservative” leaders to ignore. Contrary to many Conservative impulses, the US embarked on numerous “military adventures” with many negative consequences. Among the consequences was the loss of the strong consensus for unprecedented military superiority.
The uneasy alliance between the “Christian Right” and other factions of Conservatism arose from a reaction against the relaxing of moral scruples generally associated with European Liberalism. The perceived decay of Public Morality brought in many Evangelical Moralists to the Conservative movement. These Conservatives were rather tepid on other Conservative issues – especially economic and “small government” issues.
Those Conservatives motivated by economic issues, have been strongly influenced by the perceived economic decline of “Liberal Western Democracies.” Many were convinced that the primary cause has been the rise of the unsustainable Welfare State. Their thinking goes beyond just expensive social programs to include a host of government interventions and interference. Many of these Conservatives have concluded that all government intervention and regulation is bad and that small government and laisse-faire Capitalism should be the guiding principles for sustained economic growth. This engendered a commitment to unbridled materialism as a matter of economic necessity. All ideas, programs or theories that added constraints were viewed as impeding economic growth – including environmentalism.
After identifying these factors, it became clear that this “coalition” of Conservatives was susceptible to fracture along several lines. Recent economic and geopolitical events have made it difficult to sustain this coalition on the basis of economic or military policies. Furthermore, the perceived abandonment of morality issues by the Republican Party has raised the ire of the “Christian Right.” The coalition that now supports Donald Trump is driven more by emotional response than commitment to easily identified Conservative policies. Dr. Beckwith made it clear that Mr. Trump was not his ideal choice as the Conservative standard bearer, but would not commit to who he would support in the current election. He indicated that he would normally be drawn to the Libertarian candidate, but that in this cycle that candidate is quite flawed.
Dr. Beckwith then tried to address the issue of the future. He quoted his favorite philosopher, Yogi Berra who wisely quipped:
“It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
Nevertheless, he tried to point out a few things that he thinks need to be a part of the future of Conservatism. The first of these related to personal commitments. He urged Conservatives to commit to the sustaining and growing those subsidiary institutions from which Conservative ideas come.
When it comes to Public Policy, Dr. Beckwith believed that fewer, more tightly held values might better sustain a Conservative coalition. He suggested that Conservatives focus on two main issues. These were:
- Find ways to limit the growth of governmental administrative power and
- Embrace traditional Liberalism – that is, a commitment to personal freedoms
Dr. Beckwith pointed out a few examples of the outrageous growth in the power and scope of government administrators. We generally call these regulators, but we need to think broader than that. Every governmental program has is cadre of administrative personnel who often operate as a law unto themselves. We see this with the IRS, NSA, Medicare, Social Security as well as EPA, OSHA, DOE, FCC, FAA, SEC and many others. Dr. Beckwith urged that we find a way to curb the growth of government or it will consume our entire economy.
At the same time we need to commit ourselves to what Dr. Beckwith called “Rock-Ribbed Liberalism.” By this he meant a commitment to freedom that makes room for diversity. He pointed out the folly of trying to lobby for Christian religious freedom while not vigorously defending the rights of Jews, Muslims and Atheists. Likewise, if we hope to teach our children our moral scruples we must allow others to do the same. Dr. Beckwith ending on more or less a hypothetical note. He position was “if” Conservatism is to have a future “then” it must hold to just a few values very tightly. The current hodge-podge of Conservative values cannot be held together by anything but emotion and that makes for bad policy.
As one might expect, it was not possible to discern the future of Conservatism. Nevertheless, Dr. Beckwith’s insights and thoughts were well worth the time. I hope I gave you a sense of his depth of his thinking on the matter. For more study on this topic I would suggest that you get one of Dr. Beckwith’s books on the subject. Among the many books he has written, Politics for Christians might be the most relevant on this subject.
I consider these issues very important, especially for the future of small business, one of those subsidiary institutions that Dr. Beckwith talked about. I came away from the lecture with a greater understanding of Conservatism and the issues that will impact the future. Unfortunately I had the unsettling sense that perhaps Yogi was right when he said:
“The future ain’t what it used to be.”
Ron Stites holds a BS in Chemistry and an MBA in Finance and Accounting. Stites & Associates, LLC, is a group of technical professionals who work with clients to improve business performance and evaluate and improve technology by applying good management judgment based on objective evidence and sound scientific thinking. For more information see: www.tek-dev.net.
I have wondered for years about the origin of the phrase “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Was it the theoretical physicist Neils Bohr, or the applied physicist Yogi Berra? Now I have done a quick search and found what I believe to be a credible source:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/
This makes it clear that, while Bohr might have used the phrase (being Danish), its origin is lost in the sands of time.
Posted by: Jeremy Boak | 11/03/2016 at 03:21 PM