What’s a Conservative to Do?

By Robert E. Freer, Jr., President of The Free Enterprise Foundation

Historians Will and Ariel Durant describe the conservative philosophy of the early nineteenth century as "defending the necessity of religion, the wisdom of tradition, the authority of the family, the advantages of legitimate monarchy, and the constant need to maintain political, moral, and economic dikes against the ever-swelling sea of popular ignorance, cupidity, violence, barbarism, and fertility." With the exception of Monarchy, the 21st century isn’t much different in its characterization of the conservative caste of mind. And as to constitutional monarchy, many conservatives would take no exception and note with pride the stability of Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark and Monaco, just to name a few.

What is different today is the virulence that characterizes the interplay among hyphenated-conservatives who have little tolerance for deviation from whatever it is that they hold most dear. They are determined to scorch from inclusion in the “club” any apostate that is unwilling to shed blood to prevent accommodation with those in our society who do not view things exactly as they do. I fear that some at both extremes of our society take their “purity” so seriously, they would even ignore the word “indivisible” in the oath we all regularly make as we salute our flag and pledge allegiance to all that it stands for.

Herbert Spencer, the creator of the phrase “Survival of The fittest” argued that the only legitimate functions of government are “…simply to defend the natural rights of man—to protect person and property—to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak—in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more”

As a conservative, I yield to no man in my pursuit of those values described in the Durants’ prose copied above, but as an American, I have a responsibility in my political debate to consider the State of The Nation, the proposals for changes in governance and weigh my objections within the framework not of perfection but the art of the possible that confronts our representatives every day.

To be a philosophical conservative gives me reign to go wherever my mind may take it. To be a political conservative provides no such license. The ultimate objective of a political conservative is to provide as convincing a platform to an electorate to gain the right to govern. To govern the conservative must respect the oath taken to protect and defend the Constitution and to faithfully carry out the laws of The United States. To govern successfully also requires that the welfare of all our citizens be considered. For societal peace a bargain must be struck between our philosophical beliefs and those who do not share our views and require more in the way of governmental services in their pursuit of “life liberty and welfare” than we view as optimum.

There will always be a tension between the philosophical and the political, but for any conservative to savage Lindsey Graham for merely trying to do his job in representing us in that struggle is to cannibalize our political coalition and makes it far less likely that we will be given the right to govern. It remains to be seen whether immigration reform will be enacted. If it is not, then we have all lost, for the intolerable situation that has plagued us for far too long with undocumented aliens streaming across our porous borders and stressing our immigration intake system to the breaking point will continue. What also will continue is the chaos in our own domestic welfare, education and public safety services.

We argue that twenty years ago we agreed to solve the border control situation and did not do it. We doubt that our government’s word that it will be done now. Fine, then insist be sure this time the borders are fixed first before implementing the normalization portions of the legislation. Secure the borders first, and then grant the Z visa. We can be sure the borders going forward are secure, but we are not going to send back 12.5 million illegal immigrants here today. It simply isn’t in our interest to do so. It would destabilize many businesses that depend on them, destabilize a number of local communities who do as well, and if we actually did send them back, we would destabilize our relations throughout the hemisphere.

I have written on this subject several times in the past several years and haven’t changed my mind as to what is required. Going forward an enforceable immigrant documentation and control program is not possible until employers are held equally responsible and punishable for failures to abide by the law of the land. We talk of amnesty. Right now it is the employers getting no more than a slap on the wrist. The penalties provided for the immigrant in the proposed legislation are substantial to them and continuing while at the same time allowing our society to make use of their productive labor. To do so is in the national interest regardless of whether you are a conservative or liberal. To do so in a way that meets the conservative ideas of individual responsibility is also in the national interest. Conservative can shape the bill, but we should not destroy it.

Some of my professional politico friends say ruefully that if the Democrats cannot win nationally in 2008, they won’t anytime this century. I am not that pessimistic about the chances for conservative victory in 2008. Approval of Congress under Democratic control has sunk to 14%, but it does not bode well that the party that has been the home of the conservatives lost its control of Congress by abandoning those principles that got them elected in the first place. Instead of balanced budgets, smaller government, and tax reform, they delivered bloated government; sleaze and structural deficits that threaten to have entitlements alone bankrupt us all.

Yes, it has been liberals that have blocked progress in entitlement reform, but Republicans have acted like Democrats in their lack of fiscal discipline and embracing of pork barrel politics. They need to return to what has worked in the past. Strengthen state government by lifting the heavy federal yoke of imposed programs, keep the nation safe and secure, and allow free enterprise to flourish by keeping taxes low and government regulation minimally invasive and the public will embrace their leadership. And when that happens, keep your word. Operate the government frugally and do not in your personal habits appear to have adopted the “Washington lifestyle.” The nation has grown more conservative in the past 30 years. The passage of a properly constructed border control bill is not going to change that, but failure to adopt something that, imperfect though it may be, moves the country forward puts our domestic tranquility at risk by eroding the faith of the electorate that government can be effective in even this area of our vital national security.

Copyright © 2007 by Robert E. Freer, Jr. All rights reserved

About the author: Robert E. Freer, Jr. is President of The Free Enterprise Foundation. He is a Visiting Professor, at The Citadel and elected in 2005 to be their first John S. Grinalds Leader in Residence. A regular contributor to the Mercury, He can be reached by E-mail at The Citadel . Copies of his earlier columns can be found The Free Enterprise Foundation.

If you’d like to contribute an article to this collection please e-mail it for review .

Note: A new article appears about every 2 weeks. Sign up below for our newsletter to get each new article mailed to you the day it is published.

Go to 2007 Business Ethics Articles from What’s a Conservative to Do?