Conservative Donnybrook

I received the following quote from one of my fellow contributors asking whether I agreed:

“What liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind — economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has  afforded  more freedom and, even factoring in periodic   economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human  history.”

I don’t know where the quote came from or who said it. Skipping a few emails, I eventually responded:

First of all, I should think my ratification [of that quote] is of little concern.  Why is it important to pin my testimony down? I assume you believe this to be true.

I am always troubled by sweeping statements that say “all liberals”  or “all conservatives” or “liberals generally” or “conservatives generally.” I don’t know what is in a “liberal’s” mind. And, indeed,  I would contend that it is difficult to find a conservative these days. Those that exist are routinely denounced by the so-called Right (who are only Right in relation to other Statists).

Do Republicans, for instance, value the long-held tradition of  non-intervention that was expressed by President Washington in his  farewell address? Or have they adopted a non-traditional, more modern view? Do Republicans value the long-held tradition of  subsidiarity and power being held at the lowest effective levels of  government? To the contrary, we see Republicans advocating a slower, but inexorable centralization of power to the Federal government.  And yet, Republicans profess (falsely) to be amorous of tradition and (falsely) to be for freedom. But at every step, their supposed compassion compels them to arrogate more power to Washington, leaving  this nation’s citizens less free than they were before. What is  “compassion” as expressed governmentally other than some recognition that a person is downtrod or in need of societal defense from injustice or oppression? Why must government step in unless there is some belief that the ills that are to be fixed compassionately are too great to be overcome by anything  other than government action? Are Republicans freedom loving? Not  judging by what they do. But, then, I would contend that Republicans are not conservative.

My interlocutor took great offense to that response, and responded “I am a proud neo-conservative patriot, who admires the new directions the GOP is headed, especially in terms of national security.” I ask our readers to weigh in. What is conservatism? Is it defined by the notions espoused by the Republicans or something different? Is national security all that is left of our constitutional way of life? Shall we sacrifice all to national security as my interlocutor seems to believe? Or is there a line beyond which our efforts to protect the citizenry from terror destroys our very existence as a constitutional society? I stand by my response, believing that we cannot compromise our way of life even in the face of extremist terror. Indeed, I’d rather die a martyr to freedom, than to crush freedom in order to live. What, in the end, does it mean to be a conservative?

As an aside: When freedom at home is so besieged, does it make any sense to to be talking about spreading freedom to the world?