Commentary

Conservatism: A Better Definition

"Conservative" is one of the most misunderstood terms in the American political lexicon. In an environment such as our campus, this regrettable fact is all too true. Conservatism as it is understood in the Western world is a political disposition whose basic principles are the preservation of the established order and the protection of individual rights. But why there is a reason to preserve what we have and why protect individual rights along with that?

To all of those who are eager to impose their radical designs for the reconstruction of society, Socrates would advise that the recognition of our ignorance is the beginning of true wisdom. Our society with its institutions and traditions of all sorts has not been the design of a single age, generation, group of people or a man. It has been the cumulative growth of hundreds of years of "human action but not human design." It is impossible for a man or his generation to fully comprehend the whole wisdom that is contained in the institutions and traditions of the society.

Thus being conservative means that someone understands his limitations as a human being. We can have opinion about everything but this doesn't mean that we know everything. Oftentimes we will be disappointed with a rule, convention or institution. At times people have abolished such institutions, rules and conventions only to find themselves worse of. That's because very often we ignore or disregard the benefits that we accrue from such institutions, rules or conventions.

Notwithstanding changes do happen, human societies are like living organisms subject to and in need for change. Conservatism is not against reform no matter what. What it argues for is that we must be very careful about the nature and degree of reform. A successful and good reform will be the one that is the product of a continuous engagement with tradition and adheres to its fundamental principles. Also a reform to be successful must be limited and never intend to transform whole of society. If for instance, the Russian leaders in the 1920s had adopted gradual reform instead of revolution, they would have the chance to test and see if the system they were creating would really improve things. By choosing revolution, they created a totalitarian system too powerful to be opposed from within and too rigid to reform itself. In the Western world we believe that every person has three fundamental (primary) rights, those of life, liberty and property. Nobody has the right to take your life and neither the government without due process of law. With the right of liberty we have the opportunity to make the decisions we want to make, speak our mind and associate freely.

The right to own property makes possible the efficient allocation of resources and allows each one to possess the fruits of his labor. But most importantly, the right to own property "creates an autonomous sphere in which, by mutual consent, neither the state nor society can encroach: by drawing the line between the public and the private, it makes the owner co-sovereign."

In order for these rights to be secure, a government is needed whose main function is the protection of these rights. This government must be powerful enough to protect these rights but not very powerful as to become a threat to them. Thus the American system of government divides governmental power so to create limitations to it. There are the three branches of government, the judiciary, the legislative and the executive. Above all these is the constitution, the document that defines all our basic rights and the functions of government, with which all branches must comply with.

The laws that the government enforces must be know and certain. The laws that it wants to make should treat each and every individual equally. Thus the conservatives would argue that the government and the laws that it makes should not discriminate individuals according to their race, gender, age, income or amount of property they own.

But in order to have a government that protects the rights of the individuals a good constitution and good laws are not enough. It is people who interpret and enforce a constitution and the laws of the land. It is not sufficient that the individuals know their rights, they must lead a life where they come to exercise them regularly. It is important that the citizens develop and sustain the right habits conducive to human liberty. Thus it is good for people to be active citizens. Participate in the functions of their local government, church and associations of all sorts. They'll trust and learn better how to associate with each other, exercise their rights and know how to rule and be ruled.

The century we just left behind can be characterized as the century of failed utopias, most notable of all: communism. It was an ideology that would do away with tradition and individual rights and it failed utterly. Ronald Reagan, said that "we have come to a time for choosing... I suggest to you that there is no left or right, only an up or down: Up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism, and regardless of their humanitarian purpose, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have, whether they know it or not, chosen this downward path."

Hopefully this new century we will continue the right path.

Napoleon Linardatos, our resident intellectual, sure is cleaning up in this issue of the Oregon Commentator. This is the first of three. Can you find all the others?