This article argues that both Conservatism and Liberalism can govern effectively as long as democratic fundamentals are in a healthy state. Unfortunately, those fundamentals have major weaknesses in the country that has been leading the free world in the past century, the USA.
Conservatism Works, But Only If …
(Definition from Philosophy Basics) Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change.
A recent article about Classic Conservatism written by Joe Scarborough in 2013 for Politico in 2013 titled “Conservatism defined” quotes William F. Buckley, Jr., the voice of American Conservatism in the mid-20th century, as follows:
Later in the article:
This last statement shows that even Buckley recognized that it is necessary to compromise on pure ideology in order to have a government that functions within the real world. More about that later.
Today’s Conservatives tend to believe in (derivative from this Web page):
- personal responsibility
- limited government
- free markets
- individual liberty
- “traditional” values (where tradition is whatever you personally are used to, and where tradition evolves over time; e.g., in ancient Rome, the Greek gods were traditional and Christianity was a new and disruptive thing)
- strong defense and strong enforcement of laws
Modern Conservatives believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
Would long-term Conservative dominance lead to disaster?
If certain key democratic fundamentals are in place, such as checks and balances between different branches of government, free and open elections and a free press, then long-term Conservative dominance can only be maintained if their policy and governance is acceptable to the majority of citizens; otherwise, they will be voted out at the next election. Thus, if a political party wants to stay in charge across several election cycles, they better not steer very far from the center.
If Conservatives are in charge for a long period, the resulting predictability will allow society to adapt to address problems that a Conservative government will not address. For example, if the Conservative government provides a weak safety net for the disadvantaged and troubled people of the country, good-hearted citizens will create appropriate non-governmental institutions to address the problems that government doesn’t solve. I am guessing that this is what George H. W. Bush meant by “a thousand points of light.”
Therefore, my conclusion is that, in a healthy democracy, long-term Conservative dominance will not lead to disaster. A modern example is Germany, where the center-right Christian Democratic Union under Helmut Kohl was in charge for 16 straight years (1982-1998). Germany had a stable government, strong economy and social stability during this period despite taking on the enormous task of unifying with the much poorer East Germany starting in 1990.
Liberalism Works, But Only If …
The term Liberalism has changed dramatically in the past two hundred years. At one point, it was all about individual liberty, along with limitations on the power of governments and a free-market economy. In the 20th and 21st centuries, it has morphed into “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and … standing for the protection of political and civil liberties … that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequitiesFrom Merriam-Webster.com)(
Today’s Liberals tend to believe:
- government should play a role regulating the economy in order to protect its citizens from harmful effects of unregulated marketplace activity
- government should play a role in alleviating social ills and ensure equal opportunity
- government needs to adapt to a rapidly changing world (e.g., technological advances and social change)
Would long-term Liberal dominance lead to disaster?
If certain key democratic fundamentals are in place, such as checks and balances between different branches of government, free and open elections and a free press, then long-term Liberal dominance can only be maintained if their policy and governance is acceptable to the majority of citizens; otherwise, they will be voted out at the next election. Thus, if a political party wants to stay in charge across several election cycles, they better not steer very far from the center.
If Liberals are in charge for a long period, the resulting predictability will allow society to adapt to address problems that a Liberal government will not address. For example, if the Liberal government institutes complex regulations over a particular industry (e.g., the automotive industry), businesses in that industry might work together to establish a service company or manufacturing company that deals with some of the trickier parts of the regulations, or perhaps such a company will emerge on its own to satisfy a marketplace need. This sort of adaptation happens all of the time in the world of business. In the USA, companies like ADP help companies deal with complex payroll regulations.
Therefore, my conclusion is that, in a healthy democracy, long-term Liberal dominance will not lead to disaster. A modern example is California (a state whose economy would be the 6th largest in the world, bigger than France, India and Italy). California today has a Democratic governor, two Democratic senators and Democratic supermajorities in both branches of its legislature. The Democrats have controlled both houses of the state legislature almost continually since 1971 (only two times did the Republicans control one of the houses). California’s economy is rolling along (agriculture, tourism, entertainment and technology) and the state has a balanced budget. One reason for California’s success is that Gov. Jerry Brown is enforcing fiscal discipline and avoiding ideologically dividing issues.
Time for a quick sports analogy. In the international sport of football (called soccer in the USA), two popular formations are the 4-4-2 and the 4-3-3, depicted below. On the surface, the 4-4-2 (four defenders, four midfielders and two forwards) is a more defensive (conservative) alignment than the 4-4-3 (four defenders, three midfielders and three forwards), which is a more offensive (liberal/progressive) alignment because more people are in position to score goals than the 4-4-2. I would call the 4-4-2 the “leans conservative” formation and the 4-3-3 the “leans liberal” formation.
In practice, teams that use the 4-4-2 may find they need to use particular offensive-minded (liberal) players in the midfield to score enough goals, and teams that use a 4-3-3 may emphasize to their forwards the need to help on defense to prevent too many goals against.
The lesson here is that, when competitors get really serious (and nothing is more serious around the world than football/soccer), they deploy a balanced approach, not extremism.
Below are two formations that you’ll never see in any serious competition.
The first formation above is Extreme Conservatism, where all resources are deployed to prevent threats; however, it is not a viable formation because the team will find itself under continual attack. Sooner or later the ball will ricochet into the goal. The second formation, which I call Extreme Liberal, is equally not viable; the other team will have countless breakaways against the poor goalie.
A recent example of Extreme Conservatism failing in real-life is Sam Brownback’s attempt to boost the Kansas economy by supply-side tax cuts. The result was budget deficits and insufficient funding for education. Even members of his own party voted to override his veto so that taxes would be higher.
Democracy Fundamentals Necessary To Make Either Dominant Conservatism or Dominant Liberalism Work
One key point is that well-functioning democracies will naturally gravitate to the center, and will gradually over time adopt policy proposed by the more Liberal citizens of any particular time period.
Whenever a more extreme political ideology, be it Conservative or Liberal, attempts to force its policies onto an unwilling citizenry majority, almost all of the time an (at least) equal and opposite reaction will occur, starting in motion a wide-swinging Liberal vs. Conservative pendulum that may take decades to dampen. The Great Society of Lyndon Baines Johnson was much despised by Conservatives and may have played a key role in bringing about the Reagan Revolution, which itself fostered considerable animosity from Liberals, which may have helped Barack Obama years later. The wide-swinging pendulum brings with it considerable political inefficiency, such as Congressional sessions famous for getting almost nothing accomplished.
Ideologues that see the majority does not agree with their agenda will resort to tricks that preserve their power but which damage our democratic institutions as a side effect. The most common technique to gain or preserve power is to engage in false or misleading rhetoric. For example, the NRA warns its members that the Liberals want to take their guns away. This is a highly effective falsehood. In America, politicians have learned that truth doesn’t matter. Look at PolitiFact ratings for Donald Trump, which shows 69% falsehood rate, and Nancy Pelosi, who has a 45% falsehood rate.
For more tricks that selfish interests use to manipulate the governing process in their favor, read Chapter 4: True Democracy from my book Holy War for True Democracy.
Here are democracy fundamentals that must be in place in order to achieve a government that is responsive to the majority will of its citizens:
- Trustworthy information on government and politics. If the citizens hear outright falsehoods, biased opinion posing as fact or emotionally-charged rhetoric (they will take your guns away or send you to an interment camp), citizens will make election decisions based on emotions rather than reflect their true interests and values. Because trustworthy information is crucial to a well-functioning democracy, and in America we have a largely broken news media (e.g., Russian-sponsored fake news, Fox News is biased to the Conservative side and MSNBC is biased to the Liberal side), the first major initiative at Democracy Guardians will be working towards trustworthy information on government and politics. For details, see this page or read Chapter 6: True Prioritizing Trustworthiness from my book Holy War for True Democracy.
- Free and fair elections. In America, we have major problems with our election process due to a combination of Russian interference, gerrymandering and voter suppression that damage the ability of the majority to assert its will.
- Reasonable amount of civility and respect in political discourse. While it is fine to have opinions and to advocate those positions forcefully, it is damaging to the democratic process to demonize or insult those who have a different point of view. In recent times in the USA, we have had an unprecedented lack of civility. We have to start with Donald Trump and his extraordinary ability to insult competitors by name-calling, such as Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Little Marco and Crooked Hillary. Hillary Clinton famously insulted Trump’s supporters saying, “To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.” More recently, Donald Trump’s son Eric said this of Washington Democrats”I’ve never seen hatred like this. To me, they’re not even people.” The voters hear this rhetoric and start believing that the other side is the biggest threat of all, which causes them to allow or even applaud their side if it does destructive things to the democratic process, such as voter suppression or gerrymandering.
- Money cannot buy elections. While it is a legitimate part of the democratic process for people to “put their money where their mouth is” and to defend their own interests in political activity, in America we have gone overboard with the ability of Big Money to influence elections, legislation and regulatory activities. I go into more detail into this problem in Chapter 4: True Democracy from my book Holy War for True Democracy.
- Reasonable long-term policy stability. A democratically governed country will see economic and social problems if there is excessive flip-flop (or at least fear of flip-flop) between Conservative and Liberal policy with new election cycles. Individuals and businesses need long-term predictability before they have sufficient confidence to make major adjustments, such as switching careers or opening a new manufacturing plant. A case in point is health care in America. The Republicans in 2017 are hell-bent on repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, but the details of their replacement plan are either tremendously unpopular or highly uncertain, but if a Republican health care plan becomes law (whatever it turns out to be), it will be highly disruptive, and there will be an instant call from Democrats to vote them back into power so that they can restore the ACA. The Republicans have backed themselves into a corner with their anti-Obamacare rhetoric and have introduced great uncertainty into one of the the largest economic sector in the country. We shouldn’t put all blame on the Republicans; the Democrats got the political ball rolling by ramming the ACA into law without a single Republican vote.
My conclusion is that healthy democracy fundamentals are much more important over the long run than the current partisan bickering over particular issues. Policy will naturally gravitate to the center for a country’s electorate. It is only when selfish interests attempt to win elections and push through policy by falsehoods, incivility (“deplorables”, “not even people”), big money controlling elections and destabilizing flip-flopping on major policy that democracy fails to find its happy medium. We need to guard our democracies to ensure their fundamentals are in good working order.Conservatism and Liberalism both work, but only if democratic fundamentals are strong. Click To Tweet
About the author
Jon Ferraiolo is the author of Holy War for True Democracy and the founder of Democracy Guardians. He has advanced ALS which has resulted in near-paralysis of his arms and hands. As a result, he wrote this article (including all of the diagrams), authored the book and launched the nonprofit using only his eyes.