In defense of Conservatism

Stupid, idiot, loser!

These were the ‘eloquent’ superlatives used by Donald Trump, the modern self-anointed prophet of making ‘great deals’ and ‘winning’, to describe his opponents during the US Presidential election. If prominent conservatives such as Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan were to hear Trump, they would turn over in their graves.

With ‘The Donald’ becoming the President of the USA and the de facto leader of the Grand Old Party (GOP), pundits believe that the death knell for the conservative movement has been sounded.

Just to set the records straight, Mr. Trump is no conservative. He is a political chameleon who has changed colors so often that zoologists ought to consider renaming the chameleon as the ‘trumpeleon’. For some time now, conservatism, in popular media and films, has been depicted as everything that is unholy and unwanted. Irrespective of these attacks, conservatism still has a lot to offer towards the enrichment of the political discourse.

Before Trump provided the adjective ‘stupid’ with a new lease of life, it was the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill who used it to describe people with a conservative ideology. To paraphrase Mill, conservatives aren’t stupid, but the most stupid people are conservative. JS Mill wore a lot of hats those of a philosopher, political scientist, and an economist but he wasn’t a distinguished statistician. This utterance of, ‘rational’ and ‘liberal’, Mill reflects the ad-hominem nature of criticism that has been directed at conservatives throughout centuries.

The critics of the conservative ideology censure it for being reactionary and devoid of humanistic ideals. If that would have been the case, Edmund Burke wouldn’t have fulminated, on the floor of the British Parliament, against Warren Hastings for being at the forefront of the rape of India. Further, it was Burke who supported the plight of the American colonies by advocating conciliation. It was David Hume, one of the earliest conservatives, who advocated reason and causality as the tools for testing theories. How can conservatism be ‘stupid’ when its earliest proponents advocated issues and propounded ideas that were essential to the material and moral advancement of the civilization?

Far from the warped ideologies of self-appointed banner men of present day conservatism, the conservative leaders of the twentieth century were prescient in foreboding the dangers facing mankind and formulating responses to counter such dangers. President Eisenhower, when demitting office, warned against perils of the military-industrial complex and how it endangered world peace and security. President Reagan, apart from hastening the fall of communism, acted decisively to check the erosion of ozone layer.

To be fair, flag-bearers of the 21st century conservatism have erred in adhering to conservative principles. Far from the scientific temper and spirit of humanity that fashioned conservative ideology, leaders of the conservative movement in their militant disapproval of gay rights, blatant denial of global warming, and, in general, supporting positions that have no anchor in reason or rationality have alienated a generation of supporters. Further two terms of Bush Presidency had a cataclysmic effect on the conservative movement. From waging wars, without the sanction of international community, to leaving government treasury and economy in tatters, Bush presidency was the perfect storm for the conservative movement.

Conservatism as a political ideology is not an adversarial force to liberalism. It is a balancing force that is needed to shape public discourse so as to enable positive governance outcomes. Conservatism acts as a bulwark against freewheeling and utopian tendencies of liberalism, which have at times led to unwieldy welfare programs and oversized governments.

Conservatism is Yin to liberalism’s Yang. One cannot exist without the other.