Robert P. George is the McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
What should the conservative movement stand for? What should conservatives dedicate themselves to conserving?
Over the past few weeks, it has become clear that people describing themselves as conservatives don’t agree on the answers to these questions.
Legitimate differences and debates exist among authentic conservatives. Although conservatives certainly reject socialism, there is no canonical conservative position on, for example, how much regulation of markets is desirable. Some conservatives lean heavily in the direction of strict libertarianism; others allow more room for government interventions in the economy.
Similarly, while conservatives generally believe that America should support other democracies, especially where they are under threat, conservatives have a range of perspectives on the question of how interventionist or noninterventionist U.S. foreign policy should be.
So, in a sense, conservatism is, and should be, a “big tent.”
Still, there are limits.
Those limits are reached when people claiming the mantle of conservatism promote white supremacy, antisemitism, eugenics, the subjugation of women, and other forms of ideological extremism and bigotry.
So-called “groypers,” such as the Hitler (and Stalin) sympathizer Nick Fuentes, want to be inside the tent, and they make no secret of their aim to take control of and remake the conservative movement.
Even conservatives who are appalled by the grotesque ideologies of Fuentes and his allies sometimes seem uncertain about how to deal with the phenomenon. They note that illiberal “influencers” have large online followings, especially among disaffected young men, and fear alienating them if they draw a bright line excluding racists and antisemites from membership in good standing in the conservative community.
But drawing a bright line is exactly what we need to do — immediately.
Extremism and bigotry have no place in the conservative movement. They are contrary to the central things conservatives should be dedicating themselves to conserving, namely, the biblical principle of the inherent dignity of every member of the human family, and the civic principle that human beings are “created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
A plea to my fellow conservatives to draw a bright line against bigotry is not a call to “cancellation.” Individuals who hold extremist or bigoted views possess the same right to express their opinions as everyone else has. I would fight — indeed, I have fought — to protect their free speech rights despite my profound rejection of their beliefs.
What I am doing is reminding conservatives that we stand for certain things. Therefore, not everything is up for grabs or negotiable. Nor is everyone, irrespective of their beliefs, welcome in the conservative movement. Unless you share conservatism’s core values, then you are not with us in standing for what our movement exists to conserve.
There is, of course, more to American conservatism — belief in the rule of law; in the nation’s republican civic order; in accountable and limited government; in marriage and the family; in the importance of flourishing institutions of civil society; in traditional moral values, personal responsibility, and rewarding effort and achievement; in the constitutional principles of federalism and the separation of powers; in basic civil rights and liberties; in the market-based economy; in a sensible system of legal immigration, and in opposition to illegal immigration; in maintaining a healthy physical environment for everyone and a moral ecology suitable for the rearing of children; in a strong national defense and a sensible understanding of America’s leadership role in the world.
At the foundation, however, is the basic commitment to inherent and equal dignity and natural rights. If conservatism doesn’t stand for conserving these values, it stands for nothing. Everything else conservatives believe — about politics and government, education, ethics, culture — stands upon those foundational values. Any viewpoint that denies those values cannot be conservative.
Conservatism’s core commitments provide the framework within which we debate the best means — the best policies — for effectuating our vision of the common good. These commitments don’t resolve every political question, even among conservatives, but they set certain boundaries.
The intrusion of fundamentally anti-conservative ideas into American conservatism is connected to the rise of illiberalism on the left. For over a decade now, “wokeism” has produced authoritarian groupthink — genuine cancel culture — in universities, in journalism, in law and business firms, in medical education and practice, and in the public square as a whole. Decent and honorable people lost educational and professional opportunities, jobs, careers, financial stability and reputations when left-wing outrage mobs came for them. Illiberalism laid the groundwork for the “groyper” backlash now in full swing.
Still, the reality is that although these bigots are an extremely noisy online presence, most conservatives, including plenty of young conservative men, still embrace what Abraham Lincoln called the “ancient faith” — the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. By embracing these principles, conservatism can meet today’s political, cultural and economic challenges.
The “groypers” who are attempting to bring their toxic ideas into the conservative movement and remake conservatism in their image ought to be met with reasoned, principled responses. Conservative leaders and institutions must not pander to them or play footsie with them. We must, in the name of our ancient faith, draw the bright line.
The post What conservatism should stand for … and against appeared first on Washington Post.
