Conservatism Revisited

“Conservatism” seems to be a word that is not very respectable, lately; it has degenerated into the realm of what lots of people consider to be lacking in compassion. But I would beg to resurrect the word and the concept. Conservatism is not just a plea to change nothing. I think it is a philosophy of government that seeks to retain things that have worked in the past while, at the same time, looking for changes that need to be made in order to make things work better in the present. There is no warrant for thinking that conservatives are just a bunch of reactionary do-nothings that have no new ideas, no innovations, and no compassion in government and societal matters.

We need to get a better look at the term, “compassionate." Compassion for the poor and underserved must not be measured by how much we spend on it, but how many people we help, and certainly not by how many programs the government creates to attain it. Conservatives have always maintained that conservative ideas—of government, the economy, society, the family—are based on sound MORAL principles.

It is true that in the late 19^th Century, when Adam Smith was writing his Wealth of Nations, merchants and manufacturers were living by the maxim, “all for ourselves, and nothing for other people,” as Smith observed. I am sure that left completely unbridled, present day entrepreneurs and capitalists might degenerate into the same mindset. And it is right here that government regulation of business and finance has shown its value. Such government acts as the Sherman Antitrust Act and child labor laws have greatly mitigated the “mean rapacity” of unfair and uncompassionate employment practices.

Being a medical person, I will point out another good effect of government regulation on business and manufacturing. In recent decades, laws have been instituted outlawing the use of lead in gasoline. This regulation has resulted in falling blood lead levels in all Americans and less brain morbidity among children as a result.

In discussing the evils of Obamacare, one of my son-in-laws, David, has reminded me of the many benefits of the law, such as sharable medical records that will prevent a lot of test repetition and, thereby, a lot of excess expense. There are many other benefits of Obamacare, too; but I am still wary of government control of businesses—and especially of health care. I think the government has overstepped its reach.

In sum, I believe that the individual is better off where he is free to better himself by working for his needs. Earned money is much more valuable than money that is given to him in the form of government entitlements. Self-help nurtures a spirit of independence rather than fostering the dependency that is too often the result of misguided entitlements. True compassion finds expression and fulfillment in civil society more often than in government. This is not to deny the validity or utility of safety nets and entitlements in principle, only to define and limit them in practice. Nor is it to deny any role to government, only, again, to define that role more precisely and to limit it more severely.

Here is a quote from a Civil War veteran, Robert Ingersoll: “I will now give you my ideas about finance. In the first place the Government does not support the people, the people support the Government.

“The Government is a perpetual pauper. It passes round the hat, and solicits contributions; but then you must remember that the Government has a musket behind the hat. The Government produces nothing. It does not plow the land, it does not sow corn it does not grow trees. The Government is a perpetual consumer.

“We support the Government. Now, the idea that the Government can make money for you and me to live on—why, it is the same as though my hired man should issue certificates of my indebtedness to him for me to live on.”  

We need to mix some common sense with the race to control everything and every need of our society by means of government intervention.