The Conservative Manifesto
~Published in the Daily Illini on January 23rd, 2006
Conservatives are a diverse crowd, housing many shades. The ones most often in the news are the loud radicals who fanatically defend their political faiths without concept of compromise. I hope to offer a less newsworthy view on what a conservative is and is not.
The Orange and Blue Observer and its editor, Leo Buchignani, do not represent mainstream conservatism. It is questionable whether they are conservative at all. It is radical, not conservative, to believe that society should make women subservient to husbands and fathers, verbally assault homosexuality, advocate the bombing of abortion clinics and casually distribute automatic weapons on the Quad.
Pat Robertson and the religious right also fail to understand the roots of conservative philosophy. Reading the entire Bible literally and imposing the moral standards derived from that interpretation on the general public is theocratic, not conservative.
The roots of conservatism are much more sophisticated and nuanced. Conservative policy stems from three pillars: responsibility of the individual, humans being fundamentally competitive and the theory of limited government.
Governments are nothing more than an assembly of humans who are no more intelligent or further along the evolutionary tract than the people they serve. Elected representatives sit upon a high stool, removed from their constituents. Therefore, they have a less precise understanding of common needs than the common man himself. Just as a doctor cannot diagnose a patient from afar, neither can the government properly assess the needs of the people from afar.
Conservatives believe that human nature is self-serving and immutable. They wish to create institutions that check, complement and accept human nature, rather than try to change it. Liberals strive to use institutions to make human instincts better, believing that human nature is malleable and able to be taught.
Conservatism is often misunderstood both by those adhering to it and opposing it. Snappy media explanations draw conservatives as unwilling to help the disadvantaged. True conservative philosophy states that current and historical injustices do weigh on the socio-economic order. These injustices must be acknowledged. The best remedy is to provide opportunity to the disadvantaged without simply handing out the fruits of those opportunities.
Handouts and safety nets do not complement human nature. Conservatives believe carefully crafted policy must account for the expression of human nature in society. Dependency on government domesticates human nature; it disables individuals by controlling them. Big government programs like Social Security, welfare, affirmative action and national healthcare all create a sense of dependency, which in the long-run weakens the individual's competitive spirit. This does not mean that the government ought never to help its citizens. Rather, its help should be temporary and tailored as incentives that coincide with competitiveness.
The public policy implications of this conservative view might surprise you. Some well-wrought form of affirmative action is necessary to overcome the injustices of the past and to provide opportunity for success.
Gay marriage should be legalized, since the distant elected representative does not know what is best for any individual. Welfare should exist, but should not promise perpetual benefits and should create incentives to work.
Social Security should be privatized within a limited set of guidelines, since the common man's intelligence and sense can be trusted to cultivate his own savings.
Speech and the marketplace of ideas should be as free as possible, so long as everyone has the opportunity to fairly participate.
J.S. Mill, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Milton Friedman, Edmund Burke, Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Brooks and John McCain all sharply express some form of these ideas. Conservatism holds an eternal confidence in the individual, realizing that if individuals are incapable of making correct judgments, so too will conglomerations of individuals. It is within the nature of humans to do what is best for themselves and their families. The best forms of government and economics befriend human nature, rather than fear it.
Conservatives are a diverse crowd, housing many shades. The ones most often in the news are the loud radicals who fanatically defend their political faiths without concept of compromise. I hope to offer a less newsworthy view on what a conservative is and is not.
The Orange and Blue Observer and its editor, Leo Buchignani, do not represent mainstream conservatism. It is questionable whether they are conservative at all. It is radical, not conservative, to believe that society should make women subservient to husbands and fathers, verbally assault homosexuality, advocate the bombing of abortion clinics and casually distribute automatic weapons on the Quad.
Pat Robertson and the religious right also fail to understand the roots of conservative philosophy. Reading the entire Bible literally and imposing the moral standards derived from that interpretation on the general public is theocratic, not conservative.
The roots of conservatism are much more sophisticated and nuanced. Conservative policy stems from three pillars: responsibility of the individual, humans being fundamentally competitive and the theory of limited government.
Governments are nothing more than an assembly of humans who are no more intelligent or further along the evolutionary tract than the people they serve. Elected representatives sit upon a high stool, removed from their constituents. Therefore, they have a less precise understanding of common needs than the common man himself. Just as a doctor cannot diagnose a patient from afar, neither can the government properly assess the needs of the people from afar.
Conservatives believe that human nature is self-serving and immutable. They wish to create institutions that check, complement and accept human nature, rather than try to change it. Liberals strive to use institutions to make human instincts better, believing that human nature is malleable and able to be taught.
Conservatism is often misunderstood both by those adhering to it and opposing it. Snappy media explanations draw conservatives as unwilling to help the disadvantaged. True conservative philosophy states that current and historical injustices do weigh on the socio-economic order. These injustices must be acknowledged. The best remedy is to provide opportunity to the disadvantaged without simply handing out the fruits of those opportunities.
Handouts and safety nets do not complement human nature. Conservatives believe carefully crafted policy must account for the expression of human nature in society. Dependency on government domesticates human nature; it disables individuals by controlling them. Big government programs like Social Security, welfare, affirmative action and national healthcare all create a sense of dependency, which in the long-run weakens the individual's competitive spirit. This does not mean that the government ought never to help its citizens. Rather, its help should be temporary and tailored as incentives that coincide with competitiveness.
The public policy implications of this conservative view might surprise you. Some well-wrought form of affirmative action is necessary to overcome the injustices of the past and to provide opportunity for success.
Gay marriage should be legalized, since the distant elected representative does not know what is best for any individual. Welfare should exist, but should not promise perpetual benefits and should create incentives to work.
Social Security should be privatized within a limited set of guidelines, since the common man's intelligence and sense can be trusted to cultivate his own savings.
Speech and the marketplace of ideas should be as free as possible, so long as everyone has the opportunity to fairly participate.
J.S. Mill, Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Milton Friedman, Edmund Burke, Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Brooks and John McCain all sharply express some form of these ideas. Conservatism holds an eternal confidence in the individual, realizing that if individuals are incapable of making correct judgments, so too will conglomerations of individuals. It is within the nature of humans to do what is best for themselves and their families. The best forms of government and economics befriend human nature, rather than fear it.
posted by Billy Joe Mills at 1:35 AM
19 Comments:
This is the one form of conservatism I can actually agree with (though I will always feel that nationalized healthcare is vital). But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many representatives of this philosophy in major politics. The leaders of so-called conservatism in Washington tend to be as much theocratic as conservative, and they abandon the fiscal responsibility that is one of the most attractive tenets of conservatism.
I think if you define conservatism this way, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone to vote for (outside of McCain). In fact, Bill Clinton is a pretty attractive candidate. Right?
Dear anonymous,
Thanks for reading the column...Clinton is definitely a reasonable thinker, and I respect that above all else. The reason I wrote the column is for precisely the reasons you summon. Most people see conservatism as Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, etc. But there is a larger segment of the Republican party that adheres to this philosophy than most realize. Most of the conservatives on campus that I know, and I do know most of them, would agree with the things I said. There is a strong conservative philosophy that college students are not exposed to, since the conservative intellectuals are in Think Tanks in D.C. rather than comfy chairs in C.U.
Good article, but you got one thing VERY wrong...
Sorry to dwell on one word, but as a responsible gun owner, I can't help but get peeved at something like this. Below is a copy of a letter I sent to the editors of the DI.
I was reading Billy Joe Mills' editorial printed in Monday's Daily Illini entitled, "The Conservative Manifesto." To be honest, I felt the article was well written and I'm sure helped this mostly liberal campus realize what it means to be a conservative. However, one line truly struck me as simply poor journalism. Billy Joe claimed that the Orange and Blue Observer attempted to raffle off an "automatic weapon." I would like to take the time to clear up the confusion here. First off, the Brady campaign and websites such as www.stopthenra.com would like you to believe that an automatic weapon and an assault weapon are one and that same. The rifle that was raffled off was in fact, an assault weapon. An assault weapon is NOT a fully automatic rifle. It may shoot the same ammunition, however, only one round is fired per trigger pull. These are simply look-a-likes of the real thing that are popular with military buffs and collectors. When signs on the quad protesting the raffle said "Who needs a gun that shoots 15 rounds a second?" I was perplexed. First, has the leftist media really indoctrinated people this far?, and second, can someone really move their finger THAT fast? An automatic rifle is one that can in fact be owned by a civilian in several states. However, the civilian must first register with the National Firearms Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms. After paying a tax of $200 and then getting a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of his/her jurisdiction, that citizen may then legally own an automatic weapon as long as it is one that was built before 1989. Such automatic weapons are referred to as "transferable machine guns." They generally cost several thousands of dollars. Furthermore, several states, including Illinois, have passed legislature stating that such registration must not occur. Thus, IL residents are machine-gun less. As you can see, when the Orange and Blue Observer were raffling off their AK47, they were raffling off a clone of the real thing. No one in Illinois has the ability to privately own an automatic weapon without breaking federal law. Therefore, I ask you, Billy Joe, to get your facts straight before perpetuating myths that the left has given the general public about gun ownership.
Dear anonymous #2,
Thanks for your input. I apologize for misunderstanding the nuances of gun lingo. If the focus of my article had been on guns, I would have done more research. I have personally never shot or examined a gun before. Although I feel your point is minor, I do appreciate your correction. Thanks much for reading the article and sending in a response to the DI.
Aren't AK467s automatic in video games? Let's not dwell on it. Those OBO guys are out of their minds, and they're hurting the party. Anyway, you're article was exactly what this campus needed to hear. Good work man.
ALL automatic weapons are illegal, so there really isn't any reason to point out that a gun raffled off isn't automatic.
hahaha...
Yoshi, I wouldn't mind trying to shoot a gun...At least people will no longer be able to say that I'm not a real conservative.
Dan,
And yea, I just assumed that since in James Bond GoldenEye the AK-47 is automatic that it would be the same in reality...hahahha. Anyways, if that one minor point is the only flaw with the entire article then I'm pretty happy. Thanks for the support.
We all have a sacred duty to arm ourselves to protect our Assyrian brothers and sisters from militant arabs like Hassen.
You are not now, nor will you ever be, a real conservative. To be a real conservative like Leo you have to be willing to turn women over your knee and teach them lessons about the joys of submission and womanhood. We all know Amanda is the one doing the spanking.
I loved your article Billy. It's about time someone publically scolded the OBO (maybe they need a spanking). Great Job!
Hey Matt,
Praise from you is of the highest caliber, I appreciate it buddy. I hope that all is going well at U of C...take care man.
Wow, maybe you should ask me for advice on all of your columns. Haha.
Great work, Billy Joe!
And WHY did you abandon journalism?! This column is great, and I plan to use it to explain my own beliefs to my "libreral" cronies. Thanks for putting it all in (very good) writing!
I know you don't need it, but good luck this year. You're going places, babe!
Keep in touch.
Well written Billy. I must say that I'm impressed; I had the distinct impression that you were much more conservative than you come across in this piece. I'm assuming your views have probably softened since we graduated, as my own have. Looking forward to reading more in the future~
This is another letter that was written into the DI. It is quite comprehensive. However, I would like to clarify that I do not consider myself a libertarian. However, on particular issues, such as gay marriage, my logic is rather libertarian.
To whom it may concern,
I would first like to thank Mr. Mills for the intelligent,
well-written, breath of fresh air he provided us all on the
opinion page of the January 23, 2006 Daily Illini. What a
relief to find a (seemingly) libertarian point-of-view
expressed without fear of being called "crazy" or "one of
those people"! The ideas he shared aligned very closely with
the beliefs I hold to be my own personal political philosophy,
however I have to admit I was a little shocked when I read the
following:
"Dependency on government domesticates human nature; it
disables individuals by controlling them. Big government
programs like Social Security, welfare, affirmative action and
national healthcare all create a sense of dependency, which in
the long-run weakens the individual's competitive spirit."
Now there is something I thought I would never see or hear
written, spoke aloud or even whispered in passing on this
campus! I say this because clearly, the above statement by the
author reveals a fundamental truth of human nature; one that
is not immediately apparent unless one backs away from the
assumption that a "government" is an inevitable human
institution, and one that will last forever. It is because of
this that I feel the article by the author is extra important
in a day and age when even our school newspaper has fallen
into the trap of "liberal vs. conservative" theatre. One
simply cannot find an honest assesment of the state of our
political culture in the media nowadays without it being
written from the perspective of a partisan viewpoint (as I'm
sure you're well-aware). The culture of the media has gotten
so carried away with the "us versus them" mentality that I
thought I may never see an article such as this one unless I
did the writing myself. So for proving me wrong I want to
again thank Mr. Mills.
Further, and sadly enough, the previous statement is
also one likely never to be uttered by any of the so-called
representatives of ours in the body of today's political
machine. This is apparent enough to the author, as he found
the need to distinguish the idea of "conservatism" from the
ideology currently adhered to by today's Republican Party and
by people who claim to be "conservatives" justified only by
their affiliation with the Republican party. But while the
author is quick to point out the failings of the liberal
political philosophy (and there are many), one might ask which
is worse: a political party that does not try to mask its
socialist intent or one that sullies the term "conservative"
by increasing the size of the Federal government by 33% over
the course of four years while in control of all three
branches of government? In my view, both political parties are
equally as harmful to the political discussion we should be
having about the size and scope of the government today.
But the political parties aren't the only things that have
been corrupted in today's political discourse. I want to
suggest to the author that the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" are also very harmful. I'm sure many readers
will disregard the author's
article altogether when they see the term "conservative" in
the title, simply because they assume it will be just another
pro-Bush rant. That is why, whenever I discuss politics, I try
never to use the terms "liberal" or "conservative", because
these terms have almost lost all meaning and have merely
become code words for people agreeing or disagreeing with the
decision to invade Iraq, etc. On the other hand, I can
understand if the author shyed away from using the term
"libertarian" when talking about personal responsibility,
seeing as how I have defined myself as a libertarian many
times and many times been given all kinds of other labels by
liberals and conservatives! All this being said, a
straightforward critique og government can be written without
the use of labels, and a good example of this is the book that
I will recommend below.
Semantics aside, nice job. I would suggest to the author the
book "Libertarianism: A Primer" to supplement the works he
suggests towards the end of his article. Thanks once again,
and I am interested in how this article will be received by
some of the professors on this campus!
Truly,
Edward Herrera
BJM,
Your commenter "Jason" wrongly stated that all automatic weapons are illegal. That is untrue. Anyone who can afford the license and pass the background check can purchase automatic weapons or even artillery pieces.
FYI, if you ever do want to go shooting, drop me a line and I'll take you over to the St. Joe Sportsman's Club.
I just found a great and relevant Lincoln quote,"The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
I just came across your blog and wanted to let you know that I did write the letter to the DI in response to your article. I just wanted to make that clear.
Sheena,
Thanks for commenting. I'm sorry that it took me 2 months to read your post, I rarely check old threads. Anyhow, Leo himself told me that he was the main drafter of that letter. Perhaps he is lying to me, but in either case, I was simply reporting what I was told.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home