Note: In a previous post, I had written about the six political mindsets in America, which includes the progressive, conservative, liberal, libertarian, Democratic Socialist, and Game mindsets. In this post, I delve deeper into the conservative mindset.
In understanding the conservative mindset, we must look at what conservatives believe, and then, based on their beliefs, what they envision for society, what they value, and how they intend to realize these values (principles).
Conservatives believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, as good and bad, as just and unjust. They believe that natural law supports what is good and not what is bad - in other words, that over time, good actions lead to good outcomes, and bad or evil actions lead to bad or evil outcomes. They believe that these distinctions are permanent and enduring - that they have guided moral decision-making for thousands of years and will continue to guide it in the future. While what is good or bad may look a little different from one time period to another, the underlying principles that comprise what is good or bad do not change. We can call this natural, permanent structure moral order.
Because moral order is natural and unchanging, it can provide a clear foundation for living, for decision-making, for individuals. This is something that people crave. People want clarity; they want a clear sense of direction or purpose. Conservatives believe this is a natural desire in all people. Without a sense of purpose, people feel lost.
In addition, conservatives believe that each individual has the ability to do what is right and to avoid doing what is wrong. This idea is called individual freedom. But there's a catch - a paradox of sorts. Conservatives understand that while all individuals have the ability to do what is right, consistently doing what is right is difficult. In the short term, doing what is right can feel bad - that is, painful or unpleasant. Exercising, for example, can be painful or unpleasant as we are putting stress on our muscles to perform.
In addition, certain bad actions can produce seemingly positive or desirable - i.e. pleasurable - results. Eating junk food, for example, might be a bad decision, leading to weight or health problems down the line, but in the moment, it certainly feels good. This pleasurable feeling acts as a physiological reward, prompting us to do more of the action that produced it. In other words, in the short term, doing what is good may feel bad, and doing what is bad can feel good.
In order to counteract this paradox and align oneself or others with moral order and the clarity it can bring, one needs to utilize the strategy of discipline. This involves refraining from and instilling pain on oneself or others for doing those bad things that feel good or are easy, and rewarding oneself or others for doing those things that are good.
Over time, the strategy of discipline leads to moral fortitude. It's like a muscle: the more good decisions you make and good actions you do, the stronger you become morally. You'll more easily be able to make moral decisions consistently and be prepared to take on more difficult moral challenges.
To summarize the main conservative tenets:
Understanding these basic precepts of moral order, clarity, individual freedom, the strategy of discipline, and moral fortitude as they apply to individuals, we can look at what conservatives envision for society.
Ultimately, what conservatives want for society is peace and prosperity. They don't want fighting or wars, which are destructive and chaotic, and they want people to be happy. But they also know that if peace and prosperity as outcomes are going be attained and sustained for an indefinite period of time, it must be done in accordance with moral order - that is, with natural law. If people continually choose to do what is wrong over what is right, then there can be no real peace or prosperity. Eventually society will just decay and become divided and disordered. Thus, what conservatives want is peace and prosperity achieved through the active pursuit of and alignment with moral order.
This presents an issue. Because, over a long period of time, it is more difficult to do what is right than what is wrong, the likelihood that the majority of people are going to consistently choose right over wrong is low - especially if society is not in a good state to begin with. This means that the likelihood of achieving the kind of peace and prosperity that conservatives want simply by following the direction of the people is also low.
There is hope, though, for conservatives. Because people want clarity, they are, consciously or unconsciously, drawn towards understanding and aligning with moral order - which means they can be led to it by those who understand and follow it. When led by morally strong leaders, the likelihood that the people will act in accordance with moral order increases dramatically. This is done through the strategy of discipline. When you reward the people who consistently do good actions and punish those who do bad, eventually society becomes more aligned with moral order, and peace and prosperity will likely ensue.
Of course, over time, as population grows, we need to rely on institutions, such as marriage, family, community, education, led by moral leaders, that value and promote alignment with moral order.
At the risk of oversimplification, we can perhaps encapsulate the conservative vision, then, in one sentence: they envision a peaceful and prosperous society, made up of moral social institutions and led by disciplined moral leaders, who reward and protect the morally strong and punish or exclude the morally weak. Conservatives want a society made up of morally strong people because, over time, everyone doing good will lead to enduring peace and prosperity.
To summarize:
The first value is morality. This refers to knowledge of what is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, etc. Conservatives value learning about how the moral order operates so that they can make good decisions in their lives and recognize leaders who understand moral order as well.
The second value is order. Order refers to a society structured to recognize and act in accordance with morality. An orderly society is one whose institutions value and promote morality. A disordered or decayed society is one that is lost - where people do not know right from wrong, where they are just following their own direction or impulses, where they just continually fight among themselves. If peace, tranquility, stability, and prosperity are the chief aims, then we want an orderly society.
The third value is authority. Conservatives value disciplined leaders who, through knowledge and experience, understand, follow, and lead according to moral order. These leaders have authority - the right to lead, to rule, to give orders.
The fourth conservative value is liberty. Individuals must be given the right, freedom, and opportunity to choose good over bad, right over wrong. This is the only way they can develop discipline and moral fortitude.
The fifth and final core conservative value is retribution. This term as I use it here does not simply mean punishment for wrong-doing, but refers to the idea that people should receive neither more nor less than what they deserve. A strong moral authority ensures we have a retributive system where the morally strong are adequately protected and rewarded for their moral fortitude, and the morally weak are appropriately punished or excluded from receiving benefits they do not deserve.
Together these values make up the acronym MORAL: Morality, Order, Retribution, Authority, and Liberty. These are the core values of conservatives.
The first principle is instruction. Institutions must be instructional, in the sense that they must teach people about morality and moral order. They must have a clearly articulated set of values, principles, and rules that derive from and align with moral order.
The second principle is embodiment. Institutions and leaders must exhibit and demonstrate the traits they wish to see in the people. They must be consistent with what they teach.
The third principle is discipline. Leaders and institutions must use reward and punishment to develop a strong, moral society made up of morally strong people. The idea is to use discipline to instill discipline in its followers.
The fourth principle is non-interference. While leaders must provide discipline, they should not try to coerce people into doing right or "being" moral. Nor can leaders do right in other people's place, robbing them of the opportunity to make moral decisions. Rather, they must let people make their own decisions and reap the rewards or face the consequences of these decisions.
A huge area of concern for conservatives are government assistance programs. For conservatives, our institutions should be built to instruct and guide people on how to be moral. Part of being moral is being self-reliant. A self-reliant person - someone who is not dependent, or minimally dependent, on anyone else for survival - is more able to make moral decisions because there are no corrupting influence on his or her decision-making.
Thus, a system in which people can become dependent on government assistance for survival does not breed morally strong people. Rather, it breeds morally weak people, since such people can easily be corrupted, misled, or simply controlled by a government due to their dependent state. Thus, most conservatives tend to be in favor of reducing or minimizing government assistance, and some support eliminating it altogether.
Following government assistance, conservatives tend to focus on the economy as a key issue. For conservatives, the market is the prime playing ground where moral order shows its face. In a free market, those who are disciplined, industrious, self-reliant, trustworthy, and wise - all moral attributes - should do well. Those who are not will, over time, fail. Conservatives generally believe, following the principle of non-interference, that the government should only intervene with the market economy in those cases where a crime (e.g. cheating, stealing, lying, etc.) has been or is being committed. Otherwise, the government should let people make their own choices and succeed or fail based on that.
This leads us to another area of concern - crime. For conservatives, crime in any form - cheating, stealing, lying, murdering, etc. - is immoral, going against moral order. Thus, laws must be severe in punishing criminals in order to teach society that crime is not acceptable. In addition, institutions that fight against, arrest, and prosecute criminals (intelligence, law enforcement, justice system) must be strongly supported and well-funded, as they are responsible for protecting moral people. This is what conservatives refer to as "law and order": strict laws and enforcement of laws for the purpose of ensuring order.
In accordance with crime is gun rights. Conservatives believe that individuals have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones, even if that means using violent means (e.g. weapons) to do so. This right is so sacred that it is included in the Constitution under the second amendment.
While conservatives do not support gun violence (viewing gun violence as a punishable crime), they believe that limiting the right of citizens to protect themselves and their family against criminals is immoral. It only serves to weaken society, as it fails to protect the people most able to protect against harmful action.
Another area of concern for conservatives is immigration. Because conservatives value a moral society, they are very cautious about who we allow to enter this society. Undocumented immigrants, for conservatives, pose a huge threat because we cannot "document" who they are - and thus, we can't account for their moral status (i.e. if they are morally strong or weak). And chances are, if they are coming into the country illegally, then they are not morally strong.
Thus, they believe we have to be strong against "illegal immigration." We need to close our borders so that immigrants come into this country the legal way and go through a documented process that allows government officials to separate the morally strong immigrants (hardworking, industrious, etc.) from the morally weak ones (lazy, unproductive, etc.).
The final area of concern we'll explore here is abortion. Most people believe that conservatives are against abortion because conservatives believe that a fetus is a person, and thus, terminating a fetus is murder. While this may certainly be the case (indeed, many conservatives put forward "the fetus is a person" point), there is actually a more fundamental issue conservatives have with abortion.
The primary issue conservatives have with abortion is that, wth the ruling of Roe v. Wade, abortion became a government-sanctioned taking of a life that allowed a group of people to avoid facing the consequences of their own immoral decisions (i.e. sex, typically outside of marriage). In other words, it protected or rewarded a group of people for making an immoral decision. This idea fundamentally goes against the conservative view.
As a progressive, I believe the key starting point from which conservatives and progressives depart is on the concept of moral order. Conservatives believe in a natural order that connects moral actions or decisions with moral outcomes - a kind of embodiment of the Indian concept of karma.
Progressives hold a different view. While we certainly agree that certain actions or decisions can lead to desirable or undesirable outcomes, and that it is important to understand the relationship between actions/decisions and consequences, we question this concept of a "natural," "enduring," and "permanent" moral order.
For instance, different figures, leaders, and groups throughout world history have professed knowledge of a "natural moral order," or have used and abused the terms "moral," "righteous," "just," etc., in order to establish their own authority and form dynasties, states, religions, cults - many of which we would consider unnatural, immoral, unrighteous, or unjust in our time period. If there is an enduring, permanent, natural "moral order" that has guided humankind throughout history, it doesn't seem like there is too much consensus on what that order is, except for a few platitudes like the Golden Rule.
Rather than resorting to a large, vague concept such as "moral order," we progressives believe it is more prudent to start with what we can agree are self-evident moral truths - obvious truths about humankind that we ought to recognize and respect in living together and improving society. The Founders enumerate some of these basic truths for us in the Declaration of Independence:
Equipped with this thinking, we can address how progressives view each of the conservative issues or areas of concern mentioned above. For instance, let's look at the area of "government assistance programs." Conservatives have an issue with these programs because they foster dependence, and thus weaken the people morally. Said another way, government assistance programs fail to foster self-reliance, a moral virtue for conservatives.
From the conservative mindset, this criticism makes sense. But for progressives, "fostering self-reliance" is not an explicit concern of the Founders. What the Founders are concerned with is "promot[ing] the general Welfare." For progressives, the role of government is ultimately to serve the people. To refuse to provide services that can help secure the welfare of the general public simply because providing these services does not "foster self-reliance" would be considered by progressives an abdication of responsibility on the part of government.
To quote FDR in his June 1934 message to Congress, "If, as our Constitution tells us, our Federal Government was established...'to promote the general welfare,' it is our plain duty to provide for that security upon which welfare depends." It was this reasoning that ultimately convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of FDR's New Deal initiatives, which rolled out a number of social safety net programs. Progressives would be in support of this reasoning, which aligns with the Founders' articulation of the moral truths and ideals of society.
When it comes to the economy, a similar difference in thinking occurs. Conservatives support a free market with minimal government interference, believing that a person's economic success (or failure) should not be supported or brought about by government influence. As such, the economy becomes a moral playing ground: with minimal government interference, we see who is morally strong and who is morally weak.
Progressives take a different perspective. We believe that if the government is to endorse an economic system, it should do so only if that system ultimately benefits the people. Not necessarily every individual, but overall, it should "promote the general welfare."
Looking at different economic systems throughout history, we believe that the market economy - where the production of goods and services is primarily influenced by the forces of supply (businesses) and demand (consumers) - is the best one to ensure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When there is healthy competition between businesses, businesses are motivated to provide better goods and services to consumers, workers are able to receive better wages from businesses in order to live, and consumers have better options to improve their lives and pursue what makes them happy.
However, we also believe that, if left unchecked, market economies can become a real threat to those very rights. An unchecked market economy - with virtually no regulations on how businesses produce and sell goods and services to consumers, employ and treat their workers, or compete with other businesses - can lead to unfair competition, exploitation, injury, sickness, and even death for businesses, workers, and consumers.
For progressives, government has a duty to protect the people - to ensure their rights to safety, freedom, and happiness. Thus, it has a duty to implement laws and policies - even if it affects a business' profits - that protect those who are most vulnerable to an unregulated economy - consumers, workers, and small businesses.
Moving to crime, we can again see clear differences between how conservatives and progressives view the issue. Conservatives generally view crime as immoral, and thus that the criminal is deserving of punishment. This is in line with the conservative value of retribution. In addition, many conservatives believe that severe punishment of crime teaches the public how we deal with criminals, hopefully deterring potential criminals from committing violating the law.
Progressives do not necessarily view crime through the lens of retribution or deterrence. Rather we view crime through the lens of public safety and legal justice. We're less concerned with punishing violators of the law as a strategy for reducing violations than we are with keeping the people safe and ensuring that the law is faithfully executed or carried out.
We feel it is just as important to design and implement laws, policies, and programs that address the underlying conditions that lead to crime, thereby reducing the threat to the public, as it is to invest in law enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute criminals in order to keep them off the street and ensure the law is successfully carried out. Both are necessary in order to ensure public safety and justice.
This takes us to the area of gun rights. Putting aside constitutional interpretations of the Second Amendment, progressives believe that the epidemic of gun violence is a public safety issue, and thus the government, under its responsibility to secure the rights of the people, has a duty to design and implement laws and policies that ensure public safety while respecting the right to bear arms as articulated in the Second Amendment.
In other words, progressives believe that we can and should balance safety with liberty, but too often the debate is focused only on liberty. Like any epidemic, we need to investigate the causes of the issue and enact policies based on these investigations to address these causes.
Our next issue is immigration. Conservatives' main concern with immigration is ensuring that we are able to document who comes and lives in the country, since their main goal is to have a peaceful society filled with morally strong people. We do not want to let just anyone into our society; we only want to let in those who we believe are morally strong.
Progressives agree that we need a secure process for managing immigration. But remember, in line with the moral truths and ideals articulated by the Founders, progressives are people-focused. We believe in implementing a humane process that respects everyone's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In other words, the government's duty to secure these rights does not end with its own citizens. It has a responsibility to respect these rights in everyone. While the path to residency and citizenship should be constructed to ensure national security and public safety and promote the welfare of the nation, its process should undoubtedly be humane - clear, fair, respectful.
The final issue we'll look at is abortion. Conservatives believe that a government-sanctioning of abortion would essentially protect people who have made an immoral decision from facing the consequences of their mistakes and thus allow them to continue to commit them.
Progressives take a different view, which takes us back to where conservatives and progressives depart from each other. The role of the government is not to decide what is "moral" or "immoral." Nor is this a power left to the State. The people decide what is moral or immoral. The role of government is to secure the inalienable rights of the people - among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Understanding what liberty means is crucial. Liberty refers to the ability to make decisions without undue or arbitrary interference from external parties, including from the government. If government is to interfere, it must have a substantial reason, as outlined by the Constitution.
Included in this concept of liberty is a person's right to bodily autonomy - that is, the right to make decisions about their own body and health. This includes decisions about reproduction. Progressives believe that the right to abortion should be protected under this right to bodily autonomy - regardless of whether the decision to abort can be considered "moral" or "immoral."
To summarize, then: