CONTRARY to popular belief, Ann Coulter and DavidHorowitz do not form thebedrock of conservative philosophy. But leave it to college students, and their professors, to believe so. Strikingly ignorant generalizations about conservatism gain buoyancy in the sea of academia and find very little correction from popular media or modern politicians who sport the label.
And yet, with a little skepticism, a long view of history and a tolerant attitude, the most strident liberal may come to study, and even respect, conservatism. It may come as a surprise, but studying conservative philosophy and giving equal airtime to conservative thinkers in the politics department may actually expose students to ideas they’ve never considered and make us all more well-rounded critical thinkers.
Conservatism as I understand it is not necessarily a political ideology; it does not have a formula or seek to apply standard methods to all ages or places. Instead, it recognizes human variability, but always with an eye for truth, and is manifest differently depending on the historical circumstance. It recognizes that the institutions, constitutions and social arrangements that work for one place may not suit another people.
For example, it was “conservative” to resist and disparage the French Revolution, but to celebrate the American one. Both occurred within a short span, but under radically different circumstances, and so were differently critiqued by many conservatives — most famously Edmund Burke. Similarly, conservatism in England has typically meant an affinity for the Crown and English history, but in America has meant something entirely more short-sighted and democratic.
Conservatism is not merely anti-liberalism, just as liberalism cannot rightly be defined as anti-conservatism. For the purpose of defining terms, there exists an important distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism can almost be called conservative; the present political marriage between libertarians and conservatives, though certainly not lacking marital dispute, highlights their philosophical relationship.
A more fitting term for liberalism applied to today’s liberals is “progressivism,” as Hillary Clinton herself noted in the first presidential debate. Progressives highlight the role of an active federal government to secure expedient economic and social equality among citizens. Conservatives have good, but very different, reasons for critiquing both classical liberals and progressives.
To miss this distinction and teach that conservatives simply stand against liberals is to miss a world of depth and dispute within both camps. It is not as if conservatives hate modernity; believe me, conservatives certainly do not hate their dental insurance or air conditioning.
But the great lie, once highlighted by Dostoevsky in “The Brother’s Karamazov,” is that man can live on bread, or physical satiation, alone. Conservatives contend that the deterioration of community, family, and religious and political institutions that develop slowly and organically for the physical satisfaction and pleasure of the individual actually makes us moderns less happy, less wise and ultimately less distinctly human.
Moreover, conservatism, unlike its counterpart, has the humility to recognize that students are worse off intellectually when universities stifle serious ideological, political and philosophical debate. Conservative philosophy, rightly applied, forces a necessary balance to correct the wholesale abstractions and utopian hubris of radical thinkers. That is, academic conservatism does not now, nor ever will, exist to crush liberalism.
The problem remains that education, under the auspices of modern liberalism, has become skill training, not soul training. And so it is no wonder that the modern academy overflows with “progressive” theory and “liberal bias.” Professors literally roll their eyes while teaching Burke or other important conservatives, if they have to at all. Ayn Rand, of all people, shapes the backbone of many students’ moral philosophy. Yet, as the very influential conservative philosopher Leo Strauss said, “Liberal education reminds those members of a mass democracy who have ears to hear of human greatness.” Sadly, on the whole, human greatness, serious examination of the self, and conservatism are not taken seriously as worthy intellectual pursuits.
Ultimately though, conservatism aims not to be popular but to be wise. It is no wonder then that in a time of sensational scholarship and factory-style education, wisdom, and along with it the appeal of academic conservatism, has been lost on us. Certainly, leave Ann Coulter off of collegiate syllabi, but disparaging the classics because of the class and gender of the author and ignoring conservative thinkers with convenient and untrained generalizations is a reduction of knowledge, not the natural progression of a learned and “liberal” student.
Christa Byker is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at cbyker@cavalierdaily.com.
