Political ideologies proceed in a circle. Beginning arbitrarily with conservatism and moving clockwise, there are roughly the following broad types of ideology: conservatism, anti-statism (libertarianism), and statism. Statism is roughly divided into left-statism and right-statism, which are distinguishable by their goals and constituencies. Statism is just another word for authoritarianism.
By statism, I mean the idea that government should do more than merely defend the people from force and fraud. Because there is broad disagreement as to what those additional “services” should be, statism necessarily uses the power of government to dictate to the citizenry the terms and conditions of their citizenhood — their social and economic arrangements.
Conservatism and libertarianism are both anti-statist, but there is a subtle and crucial difference between them, which I will explain.
Not everyone has a coherent ideology of a kind that I discuss below. There is what I call the squishy center of the electorate which is easily swayed by promises and strongly influenced by bandwagon effects. In general, there is what one writer calls clientelism:
the distribution of resources by political power through an agreement in which politicians – the patrons – make this allocation dependent on the political support of the beneficiaries – their clients. Clientelism emerges at the intersection of political power with social and economic activity.
Politicians themselves are prone to claiming ideological positions to which they don’t adhere, out of moral cowardice and a preference for power over principle. Republicans have been especially noteworthy in this respect. Democrats simply try to do what they promise to do — increase the power of government, albeit at vast but unacknowledged economic and social cost.
In what follows, I will ignore the squishy center and the politics of expediency (except for a brief mention of “establishment” conservatism). I will focus on the various ideologies, the contrasts between them, and the populist allure of left-statism and right-statism. I will start with conservatism and work around the circle to the statisms.
CONSERVATISM
I count three kinds of conservatism, which aren’t necessarily compatible with each other. The first kind is the conservatism of belief (ideological conservatism), which bears a passing resemblance to libertarianism. But that resemblance is only superficial, as is libertarianism.
The second kind of conservatism is the conservatism of temperament or disposition.
There is a third kind of conservatism. It springs from the same source as populism, and is hard to distinguish from it. A populist rightly resents the special privileges that accrue to those in power, those with access to power, or those who reap the benefits of power. It is only natural to want equal privileges, and to try to obtain them through the state.
Opposed to conservatism, in all of its guises, but oddly aligned with libertarianism is the kind of statism known as “liberalism” or “progressivism”. (The “sneer quotes” signify that the terms are badly misapplied; modern “liberalism” isn’t liberal and “progressivism” is just a euphemism for coercive social and economic policies.)
The Conservatism of Belief
Most persons — including most of those who call themselves conservatives — associate conservatism with a bundle of political positions; for example:
Small and unintrusive government, where States fully exercise their constitutional powers; Congress exercises only its strictly limited and enumerated powers, and doesn’t delegate them to bureaucrats; and judges apply constitutional laws and do not make new laws by interpreting the Constitution’s “emanations and penumbras”.
Strict application of the U.S. Constitution against State and local usurpation of freedom of contract and property rights (including but not limited to the banning of labor unions as contrary to freedom of contract and property rights).
Low taxes, just enough to fund the constitutional functions of governments (central, State, and local).
Law and order (tough and strictly enforced criminal codes)l
Strong national defense, applied only when the immediate interests of Americans are at stake, but applied without limitation once a decision to go to war has been taken.
Membership in international organizations limited to the purpose of defending such interests.
Limited legal immigration, with strong defenses against illegal immigration and strict naturalization laws (including the end of birth-right citizenship).
Freedom of religion, including the freedom to invoke the Deity on government property.
Freedom of association, including the right to refuse to do business of any kind with anyone regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.
School choice, with tax-funded vouchers for private schools (including religious ones).
Unrestricted gun ownership (but with restrictions on age, criminal history, and mental ability — but not an easily misused evaluation of mental stability).
A rollback of the voting age to 21, and preferably higher and with a property-ownership requirement (“skin in the game”).
All of this is consistent with the understanding that the things government does for people, beyond its legitimate protective functions, are costly. The costs are direct, in the form of taxes and regulations that divert resources from private uses, stultify economic growth, and shape private affairs according to the dictates of lawmakers and regulators. The costs are also indirect and long-lasting, in that governmental largesse undermines self-reliance, initiative, and the voluntary social institutions (including markets) that embed not only the specific knowledge of individual citizens but also the accumulated wisdom of long experience.
The Conservatism of Temperament
The second kind of conservatism isn’t really an ideology, it’s a temperamental (or dispositional) reliance on the accumulated wisdom of long experience, which is embedded in cultural traditions (including religious ones). Change isn’t ruled out, but it must have a practical purpose, be proven in actual use (as opposed to a politician’s or bureaucrat’s master plan), and help rather than harm effective social and economic relationships. (Given the nature of conservatism as a preference for the tried-and-true that emerges from private action, it is conservative to reject government-imposed economic and social arrangements that are contrary to those listed above, and to strive to undo them. I make this point because anti-conservatives sometimes, laughably, try to portray acceptance of long-standing governmental programs and edicts as conservative.)
If a conservative by temperament adopts ideological conservatism, he probably won’t budge from it. He will instinctively embrace it firmly because governmental interference in private affairs, with its arbitrariness and unintended consequences, offends his understanding that change should be tested in the acid of use by those directly affected by it.
LIBERTARIANISM
The discussion thus far may smack of libertarianism, which encompasses anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism) and minarchism (the night-watchman state). Fear not. There is an essential difference between conservatism and libertarianism. Conservatives value voluntary social institutions not just because they embed accumulated wisdom. Conservatives value voluntary social institutions because they bind people in mutual trust and respect, which foster mutual forbearance and breed social comity in the face of provocations. Adherence to long-standing social norms helps to preserve the wisdom embedded in them while also signalling allegiance to the community that gave rise to the norms.
Libertarians, on the other hand, following the lead of their intellectual progenitor, John Stuart Mill, are anxious to throw off what they perceive as social “oppression”. The root of libertarianism is Mill’s “harm principle”, which I have exposed for the fraud that it is.
Rather than repeat myself, I turn to Scott Yenor, writing in “The Problem with the ‘Simple Principle’ of Liberty” (Law & Liberty, March 19, 2018). Yenor begins by quoting the harm principle:
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. . . . The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. . . .The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part that merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
This is the foundational principle of libertarianism, and it is deeply flawed, as Yenor argues. He ends with this:
[T]he simple principle of [individual] liberty undermines community and compromises character by compromising the family. As common identity and the family are necessary for the survival of liberal society—or any society—I cannot believe that modes of thinking based on the “simple principle” alone suffice for a governing philosophy. The principle works when a country has a moral people, but it doesn’t make a moral people.
Ironically, there are many so-called libertarians who invoke the state in order to override binding social norms in their zeal to enforce the harm principle.
There’s more. Libertarianism, as it is usually explained and presented, lacks an essential ingredient: morality. Yes, libertarians espouse a superficially plausible version of morality — the harm principle, quoted above by Scott Yenor. But the harm principle is empty rhetoric. Harm must be defined, and its definition must arise from social norms. The alternative, which libertarians — and “liberals” — obviously embrace, is that they are uniquely endowed with the knowledge of what is “right”, and therefore should be enforced by the state. Not the least of their sins against social comity is the legalization of abortion and same-sex “marriage” (detailed arguments at the links). For more about the difference between conservatism and libertarianism, see “The Libertarian-Conservative Divide”.
LEFT-STATISM: “LIBERALISM” OR “PROGRESSIVISM”
Liberalism underwent a transition in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and became something entirely different, which I denote as “liberalism”. The name was preserved for a long time, until “liberals” began to call themselves “progressives”, but they’re the same thing.
At any rate, “liberalism” grew out of classical liberalism when the notion of rights was expanded to include positive rights. Those are rights impose burdens on the beneficiaries of those rights; for example, the payment of taxes to subsidize the poor (as the state defines them) and the right to education, which requires that taxpayers subsidize public schools, which teach that taxpayers ought to subsidize many things, that criminals are victims, that the Constitution is an out-dated and cumbersome document, and on into the night. (Positive rights are natural to close-knit groups, but are oppressive when applied to entire geopolitical entities.)
There were no essential differences between the new “liberals” and the American “progressives” of the late 19th century and early 20th century. The term “progressive” eventually dropped out of use, and “liberal” took its place until the late 20th century. The rebirth of a coherent strand of American conservatism, marked by ascendancy of Ronald Reagan, put “liberals” on the defensive. Their coping tactic wasn’t to rethink their ideology but to rename it as “progressivism”, which has become something that “liberals” and “progressives” cannot or will not acknowledge: left-statism.
Nothing is off the table for a left-statist. The state must bring everyone in line with whatever passes for “progressive” thinking at the moment: anti-religionism, same-sex marriage, gender fluidity, “women must be believed” (unless they challenge Democrats), untrammeled immigration, environmental extremism, the end of fossil fuels, socialized medicine, universal basic income, universal day-care, etc., etc., etc. Such things aren’t merely to be enacted, but transgressions against them must be punished by public shaming if not by criminal penalties. And nothing can stand in the way of the furtherance of the left-statist agenda — certainly not the Constitution. If Congress balks, use the courts, regulatory agencies, and left-dominated State and local governments. Above all, use public schools, universities, the media, and Big Tech to overwhelm the opposition by swaying public opinion and indoctrinating the next generation of voters.
If there is a distinction between “liberalism”, “progressivism”, and left-statism, it is one of attitude rather than aims. Many a “liberal” and “progressive” wants things that require oppressive state control, but is loath to admit the truth that oppressive state control is required to have such things. These naifs want to believe the impossible: that the accomplishment of the “progressive” agenda is compatible with the preservation of liberty. The left-statist simply doesn’t care about liberty; the accomplishment of the left-statist agenda is the end that justifies any and all means. Those “liberals” and “progressives” who aren’t left-statists by attitude are merely useful idiots to hard-core, Lenin-like left-statists.
Left-statism, in my vocabulary, resolves into leftism. For much more about it — including its destructiveness and pathology — see “Leftism in America” and “Leftism as Crypto-Fascism”.
THE LEFT-RIGHT DIVIDE
The Importance of Taking Sides
At bottom, that which separates people along political lines isn’t necessarily disposition, temperament, or considered ideological positions. It may be, rather, the taking of sides. And the taking of sides depends greatly on influence and association. Those things, in turn, lead to self-selection: the choice to live in place X, work at place Y, or join group Z because the prevailing views at X, Y, or Z are congruent with one’s own views. It is only later that the joiner will discover that there are uncongenial persons at X, Y, or Z — persons whose conduct (arising out of disposition or temperament) is hard to countenance. Thus the never-ending story of intramural warfare that abounds even in places that often are either mostly conservative or mostly “liberal”: universities, workplaces (especially “high tech” and “low tech” ones), clubs, and churches.
There are many on the left who are there because it is convenient or comfortable to take that side. The same is true on the right.
When I learn that a so-called conservative (e.g., Max Boot) has renounced conservatism and adopted the language of leftism, I wonder how he could have changed so quickly. But the answer is simple: he didn’t change. All that changed were his beliefs of convenience.
Populism
Populism, according to Wikipedia,
refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of “the people” and often juxtapose this group against “the elite”….
… Populists typically present “the elite” as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, all of which are depicted as a homogenous entity and accused of placing the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of “the people”. According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism.
Which is to say that populism is a facet of taking sides. Which side you’re on depends on which side you’re against. Persons who believe themselves to be oppressed in some way will take sides with those who promise to deliver them from their oppressors.
On the left the “oppressed” include persons of color (including illegal immigrants from the south), women, gender-confused persons, die-hard unionists, ethnic (but not Orthodox) Jews (who in America merely imagine themselves to be oppressed), and the poor (regardless of how they came to be poor). Members of those groups are considered traitors if they choose to be on the right. The “thick ideology” with which left-populists identify is “progressivism”, which is to say the use of state power to deliver the privileges that they believe are theirs by right.
Populism, in other words, is just statism for the benefit of non-elites.
The Essential Left-Right Difference and Its Implications
Leftism is destructive of society and the economy, whether purposely or not. This is because the reigning disposition on the left is to hold and exercise power for the “greater good” — as the leftist sees it. The toll is heavy: the destruction of traditional social norms that bind and civilize society; the rejection of free markets because they “fail” to produce outcomes desired by the left; and on and on.
Rightism aims to preserve society and to ensure a robust economy. Perhaps I am being too easy on right-statism because it currently represents no threat to liberty in America. But if it were somehow to arise as a threat (for the first time in America’s history) — and not a fear-fantasy promoted by the left — it would be a puritanically oppressive mirror-image of left-statism. To take one example: Religion might dominate the law, whereas, the law is now used to override religion.
In any event, both left-statism and right-statism are manifestations of authoritarianism. I can’t wholeheartedly endorse this article about the research of some psychologists at Emory University, but it offers some good insights about authoritarianism. Here are some of them:
[Right-wing and left-wing authoritarians] are almost like mirror images of one another that both share a common psychological core, the researchers conclude.
"Authoritarians have a predisposition for liking sameness and opposing differences among people in their environment," [lead author Thomas] Costello says. "They are submissive to people they perceive as authority figures, they are dominant and aggressive towards people they disagree with, and they are careful to obey what they consider the norms for their respective groups."…
"It's a mistake to think of authoritarianism as a right-wing concept, as some researchers have in the past," he says. "We found that ideology becomes secondary. Psychologically speaking, you're an authoritarian first, and an ideologue only as it serves the power structure that you support."
This is a refreshing change of tone from the decades-long proclivity of psychologists to label (wrongly) authoritarianism as a right-wing or conservative phenomenon. (See, for example, this, this, this, and this.)
When leftism has taken a heavy toll on society and the economy, conservatives must strive not only to wrest control from leftists but also to undo their deeds and prevent them from returning to power. “Establishment” conservatism is a weak brand of rightism that cavils at the necessity of expunging leftism from the body politic.
Here, then, are the more potent brands of rightism.
RIGHT-STATISM: FROM RIGHT-POPULISM TO INSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM
Right-Populism
The “thick” ideology with which right-populists identify is ideological conservatism. Many of the positions listed under that heading can be seen through the lens of populism as anti-elitist. Which is to say that they are anti-“progressive”, inasmuch as “progressivism” is the reigning ideology among elites.
A right-populist will not embrace conservative ideology because it implies smaller government, or because it fits his disposition. He will embrace conservative ideology as a protest against “progressivism”, while wanting government to do the things for him that government is perceived as doing for the left’s clients, and for the big corporations that are perceived as allied with the left and benefiting from government-granted privileges.
This isn’t to say, by any means, that right-populists are just as wrong-headed as the elitists they scorn. Right-populist instincts, if enacted, would result in much less costly and oppressive governance than elitist programs. There are vast and largely uncounted economic and social costs attached to the schemes hatched and enacted by elitists, which include these:
racial and ethnic preferences in college admissions, employment, and housing
mandatory accommodations by businesses to “identity” groups (but not working-class, heterosexual ones)
the opening of borders, to the detriment of middle-class taxpayers and American workers at the low end of the pay scale
the lowering of trade barriers, which benefits authoritarian foreign regimes (e.g., China) and subsidized foreign companies at the expense of American workers
futile attempts to eradicate poverty by subsidizing idleness and broken homes
futile attempts to educate persons above their innate ability
various kinds of environmental extremism that thwart economic progress and impose huge costs, the fight against “climate change” merely being the latest and worst — and which includes programs that favor the relatively affluent (e.g., subsidies for solar panels and electric vehicles, both of which actually require vast amounts of energy to produce, and the latter of which requires vast amount of energy to operated)
“credentialism”, which as Arnold Kling says, “artificially inflates the incomes of professors and administrators by raising the demand for higher education”, “artificially inflates the incomes of health care professionals”, and “in government … artificially raises incomes for people who obtain degrees that have no bearing on their ability to perform”.
More than that, right-populist instincts include the preservation of the binding and civilizing social norms that “progressives” seek to subvert. That subversion has been so successful in wide swaths of government, business, the media, the academy, and public “education” that it can only be reversed by a state as powerful as the one that the left has erected.
Institutional Conservatism
Institutional conservatism aligns with right-populism in that it enforces the norms that “progressives” seek to subvert. Instead of allowing the “marketplace of ideas” to legitimate leftism and undermine traditional morality, institutional conservatism (mistakenly called fascism) protects and fosters the institutions that preserve traditional morality: marriage (the union of one man and one woman), the family (nuclear and extended) that flows from marriage, and religion being paramount.
A Sidebar about Fascism
In popular usage, fascism is conflated with totalitarianism. They are not the same thing, though a totalitarian regime may embrace fascism instead of overtly commanding the economy. A good definition of fascism (no longer online) was found in an earlier version of Wikipedia‘s article on the subject:
Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism.
Institutional conservatism isn’t fascistic when, aside from fostering traditional morality, it is generally laissez-faire with respect to the economy. The regimes of Hitler and Mussolini were fascistic (as well as totalitarian) because the continuance of private enterprise was a sham; corporations were effectively instruments of state power. FDR’s regime was aspirationally fascistic. By contrast, the Pinochet regime in Chile was anti-fascistic in that it fostered economic growth through denationalization of industries and the growth of private enterprise.
THE CIRCLE CAN BE BROKEN
That completes my journey around the political circle, and into its squishy center. The circle isn’t smooth because politics isn’t a mathematical proposition. One’s political leanings depend on disposition, temperament, ideology, life experiences, the company one keeps — and a lot more.
Political polarization is real, but often it is only as deep as the company one keeps. It is nevertheless heartening that there is political polarization. It means that decades of indoctrination by “educators” and the media haven’t yet succeeded in turning Americans into pod people.