Volume CXXXI, Number 24 May 3, 2002 f

Anti-state and anti-left conservatism
PATRICK ROCKEFELLER
COLUMNIST

Having written a fair bit this year for both the Orient and The Patriot, I have received responses from a number of people. Often attempting to be conciliatory after roundly abusing my arguments, they conclude their correspondence by saying something like, "There are some good arguments to be made for conservatism, but these aren't them."

Usually, conservative arguments aren't seen as the "right" ones because of a split in thought. That said, we venture into the daunting world of political theory.

I've found there to be two general motivating forces in the conservative movement. These are anti-state, and anti-left, and some people cling more to one than the other.

Those that take up the anti-state cause first and foremost are often called libertarians. These are people who think that the government that governs least governs best-minimal taxes and government spending, etc. These are the "economic conservatives," who also tend to follow the "socially liberal" path, reasonably arguing that the government has no right to legislate things like abortion or gun control, and should support school choice, etc.

Anti-state was the original conservatism, as cultural conservatives often saw the best protection in a weak state. However, with the advent of a progressive left, especially with the rise of the USSR and international communism in the middle of the 20th century, there arose a strong anti-left conservatism.

The anti-left folks are by no means pro-state, but recognize the benefits derived from some authority. Historically, these are the people that came to America seeking freedom to worship and live in the manner they desired. They did not necessarily proscribe to the individualist, libertarian mold of freedom, but instead the freedom to do as they wished within the community.

In modern times, the anti-left movement has taken many forms, from the religious right to the anti-PC crusaders.

The key to a strong conservative movement in the future will be its ability to incorporate both the anti-state and anti-left movements under the same "big tent." However, too often people choose political affliation and elected officials based on one issue. An example of this would be a person who felt that abortion was an important right to keep legal (Democratic platform), but that cutting taxes was important for economic growth and job development (Republican platform).

Now, the initial tendency in an effort to create a GOP that truly pulled people under the "big tent" might be to move towards the middle. However, Bill Clinton and his "New Democrats" tried this. The resulting move towards the political center created a splintering of the far left and accusations that the two parties had become too similar. This gave the likes of Ralph Nader a niche, which many have argued cost Gore the election.

Charles Kessler, a conservative political theorist, argued that conservatives in the 1980's failed to take the moral high ground and therefore lost the chance to secure a true conservative Republican party. Reagan generally shifted the political equilibrium to the right, but he didn't secure the GOP's future.

When he cut taxes, the bill gained enough votes to pass based on its sound financial sense. This was all right and good, but Kessler argued that Reagan should have focused on the idea that it is immoral to tax some people at such a higher rate than others.

Kessler's argument has a lot of merit, but possesses shortcomings as well. It could destroy the conservative movement in the short run by ending the coalition between anti-left and anti-state. The stronger argument for conservatives to make is ensuring that both points are heard, thus encouraging more people to support the cause.

So, to claim that one is not making the "right arguments" to support a conservative case is ultimately a matter of opinion. Does one support the anti-state position or the anti-left? Both sides make good arguments, and in the end, the best way to create a Republican party that gets the most people into the "big tent"-without abandoning its basic beliefs-is to make sure both anti-state and anti-left arguments are made.