Hicks
Independence weekend is a time to do many things. Among first-rate fireworks and barbecue, I find time to re-read the Declaration of Independence. It’s a small thing, but it reminds me of so much that is of existential importance. This weekend I’ll also torture my kids with long talks about political philosophy and the future of conservative thought.
I do this for many reasons. They are embarking on a life of service, and they need to hear some of what I have to say as intellectual armor in a dangerous world. The youngest is 19, and I am all too aware that opportunities to influence my children are increasingly rare. But mostly I see the long river of American conservative thought facing deep turbulence. In this process we face political re-alignment and coalitions that should make us all think about the future we want for our children.
This column is about conservative political thought in America. There’s plenty wrong with progressive political philosophy, but I will touch upon that only lightly. I’ve been a man of the political right since casting my absentee vote for Ronald Reagan from a barracks room in 1980. That is where I remain.
There are two broad types of influential conservative thought. One is European, the other American. There is some overlap, but European conservatives argue for the maintenance of their past. The particular philosophies differ by country, but they are heavily tied to church, social norms and especially national identity.
American conservatism has always been different. We don’t seek to preserve some distant, mythical cultural heritage, but rather the enduring ideas of our Revolution. These are ideas from the Enlightenment, summed into a few core principles. We believe each person has the right to speak freely, worship as they wish, assemble openly and engage in commerce as they choose. Government exists to protect these rights through rule of law. This is a deeply humanistic set of ideas, focusing on the individual, not the culture or nation.
These characteristics make American and European conservatism vastly different philosophical affairs. To be sure, Conservatives from both sides of the Atlantic may agree on many things. Both could be profoundly religious, believing their faith offers a unique revealed truth. I certainly do. However, a true American conservative cannot believe that government should promote that faith, or treat those of other faiths differently. That is anti-American, an unwelcome residue of European conservatism.
In its most simple form, European conservatism is often called Blood and Soil nationalism. Unsurprisingly, it sounded better in the original German, and it was a catch-phrase of the racialist policies of the Nazis. One other aspect of European conservatism is its traditional lack of concern over individual freedom. This manifested itself in the ease with which Hitler, and fascist governments in Spain and Italy, adopted what we would today call far-left economic policies. They would subordinate anything, especially a healthy economy, to their Blut und Boden ideology. This is not merely misguided; at its heart, it is deeply authoritarian and runs counter to the American focus on individual rights.
Now it is true that most European political parties of the right have become more like American conservatives. Constitutions, with individual rights are widely supported by Europeans, of both the left and the right. Likewise, American progressive political thought also shares respect for the pantheon of individual rights that conservatives wish to preserve. The result is a healthy form of political debate that comes from within this respect for individual rights.
One reason so much of the world is adopting our bedrock commitment to individual rights is that it proves a guardrail against extremist ideologies. As it turns out, the best way to beat back Nazis and Communists is simply to have a robust commitment to individual rights.
Again, the American Left has its own problems with authoritarians. Most visibly these enter in the excesses of culture wars. Many Americans find these deeply off-putting, thus they have proven electorally damaging. Still, the American conservative movement is quickly disintegrating into factions, with a large segment increasingly resembling old-fashioned European conservatism. If that wing of the party dominates primaries, many American conservatives will ally themselves elsewhere. It is better to be aligned with those who still respect individual rights and the rule of law, but disagree about taxes, than to join authoritarians. This will prove a powerful political coalition, as the last three elections demonstrated.
To be clear, this is not a critique of Donald Trump. Whatever else his crimes, Mr. Trump is wholly innocent of any contribution to intellectual conservatism. The growing authoritarianism comes from other sources. They include Catholic integralists, who argue for an American government subordinate to religious authority. Some of this European Conservative influence in the U.S. comes from Hungary’s Victor Orban, a proto-fascist.
Such a broad swathe of American conservatives find Orban’s world view attractive that the last Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) meeting was held in Budapest. The equivalent of this on the left would be Emily’s List meeting in Cuba, praising the Castro regime, and calling on the U.S. to adopt their ideology.
The third pillar of European conservatism that should worry us lies in economic policy. American Compass, a website run by former Romney advisor Oren Cass, lays bare the entire enterprise. In columns, editorials, and a series of policy platforms, Cass rejects nearly all of the basic economic principles of American Conservatism.
In his view, major portions of the economy must be controlled by government, with a wholesale rejection of individual freedoms. Trade cannot be free, key industries must be chosen and directed by a bureaucracy to maximize certain types of employment. Men and women must be steered to occupations that boost the ‘common good’ without regard to their individual interest or wishes. Capital markets as well as workers must be under state guidance. Cass terms this “Common Good Capitalism” and makes fact-starved arguments in support of its merits.
Make no mistake, this new European Conservatism risks two and-a-half centuries in the pursuit of individual freedom. Personal choice, individual responsibility and economic freedom are all subordinated to the goals of this ideology. To be fair, the economic framework of this European style conservatism is not new. It appeared in Italy in the 1920s and in Germany in the 1930s. In fact, the rush of economic policies pushed on Germany in 1933 are largely indistinguishable from those now promoted by American Compass.
Altogether, these ideas reject the fundamentals of American Conservatism; freedom of speech, freedom of thought and association, economic liberty and the rule of law. We Americans have worked too hard, have sacrificed too much treasure and blood, and have seen too many other nations suffer failed experiments in government to allow these decaying ideologies to infect our shores. There’s no better time to reject authoritarian movements than celebrating our Independence Day.
Michael J. Hicks is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Send comments to [email protected].
