Delaware Watch Interviews the Right
I grew up watching William F. Buckley’s program “Firing Line” on television. Buckley was my first introduction to conservatism. I learned then that conservatism stood for a small federal government, fiscal responsibility, an almost total trust in unbridled capitalism, and a strong emphasis in civil rights and civil liberties. Not all versions of conservatism today resemble the traditional version in every respect. There is an interesting variety of beliefs and emphases in conservatism today, a fact often missed by many persons on the left.
Below is an interview I conducted with Hube who now writes for the site Colossus of Rhodey, which hosts other conservatives as well. Delawareans might be familiar with Hube’s former site “Hubes Cube.” Hube reminds me in many ways of a traditional conservative, at times taking a perspective on matters that differ from the White House’s. Hube writes many thought provoking posts at Colossus. He takes little for granted and often requires proof for the claims one makes, an admirable intellectual trait. I’ve met with Hube twice and genuinely like him.
You have identified yourself as someone on the libertarian spectrum of conservatism. I believe that people on the left often group all conservatives together and don’t recognize important distinctions among them. Can you briefly describe some of the different types of conservatism that exist in USA politics and how they differ from one another?
I believe today's libertarians are "liberals" in the classic sense. Like many modern liberals prefer the term "progressive," many libertarians prefer "classic liberal." To me, classic liberals are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Libertarians have a sort of a "bad rep," so to speak, because many are considered TOO socially liberal, i.e., they favor decriminalization of ALL drugs (I certainly don't agree with this). Personally, I believe the federal government has way too much power, spends way too much, and this situation would horrify the Founders of this country. Much of the responsibilities that the federal gov. has assumed over the decades (last century-century and a half) should be those of the states. Certainly, however, various factors have to be taken into account to the contrary. Civil rights is one of these; without the intervention of the feds, black civil rights would have been set back years. Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed precisely DUE to the need to ensure civil rights for black Americans; however, this very amendment has been utilized by the federal government to grant itself rights and powers that the amendment's creators would find head-shaking. (For an excellent overview of the 14th Amendment's creation and passage, I recommend M.E. Bradford's Original Intentions on the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.
Libertarians are very much civil rights-oriented; however, unlike the ACLU for example, they believe in ALL the rights enumerated by the Constitution. For instance, libertarians believe the 2nd Amendment should be defended as vigorously as the 1st. Not many ACLU members would do that, especially since the ACLU believes the 2nd Amendment grants a "collective right" for people -- that of militias.
Fiscal conservatives are just that. They believe in balanced budgets, reduced federal budgets and consequent spending, and cuts in programs in which the feds have no business being (like public broadcasting and education). In many ways, the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 was a fiscal conservative movement. They were actually pretty successful, producing balanced budgets and budget surpluses (although it couldn't have been possible, certainly, without President Clinton. Presidents usually get all the credit when the economy zooms, but fiscal matters always originate in the House -- a fact often forgotten).
Social conservatives are what they're dubbed -- they are against things like gay "marriage" and/or even gay civil unions, what they dub as "activist" courts (like the 9th Circuit Court), affirmative action, and creeping secularism which they believe has been preventing religious _expression in the public arena. They also are against abortion in most or all cases.
Religious conservatives are social conservatives, just more religious, obviously. I personally don't believe that religious cons want to turn America into a theocracy (I'm sure some do); they just believe religion should have a greater role in public life.
Is there an important distinction between being a conservative and being a Republican? If so, how would you grade President George Bush as a conservative?
Yes. To me, philosophy is more important than party. Not all conservatives are Republicans and vice versa. The same is true of Democrats and liberals.
In my opinion, George Bush is pretty much only a social conservative. One only has to look at the budgets since he's been in office (thanks, too, to his Republican cohorts in Congress). Large tax cuts at a time when we're spending what -- one billion dollars per week in Iraq? No asking for sacrifice (in conservation) to ween us off the Middle East oil teat? Billions more in education via No Child Left Behind? (I actually believe NCLB has some very good aspects to it, but we're discussing finances here.) I could go on and on. There may be a modicum of tact involved, certainly; in other words, Bush attempting to "take away" Democrat/liberal policies/talking points in much the same way Clinton did to Republicans (like with welfare reform for example).
In addition, conservatives used to be against nation-building. In my post "Why I Am Against the Iraq War" President Bush himself declared that "We're not into nation-building" shortly after the 9/11 attacks. I agree with this philosophy. I didn't agree with the Kosovo or Haiti "adventures," either, for the record.
Have you noticed any changes or shifts in direction within conservatism since Bush won the presidency and the Republicans took control of Congress? Do you see any changes and shifts within the Republican Party in 2006 and 2008?
I think I've pretty much covered the first part of that question in my previous answers.
As for the second part, I think many fiscal conservatives are mighty peeved at Bush and the Congress for abandoning many of the 1994 ideals that swept them into the majority. The conservative blogosphere is (and has been) awash in criticisms of the new spend-thrift Republicans. However, it appears the frontrunners (such that they are at this point in time) for the 2008 Repub. nomination are more socially moderate than the president -- John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, for instance. If frontrunners such as these are more fiscally prudent than Bush, it may not matter overmuch how socially moderate they are. Still, a split is sure to occur among the conservative base if a potential nominee is TOO moderate; Giuliani is pro-choice, for example. Such a split may not matter much, though, if Democrats cannot get their collective act together.
The media often poses political discourse in terms of conservatism versus liberalism or the right versus the left. Even national and state issues often are posed in those terms. Do you believe it is often helpful to frame political discourse and issues in those terms? Is it possible that a variety of other important alternatives are missed in the current dichotomous framework of cons versus libs?
No, I certainly don't believe it is helpful. But it's probably easier for the media to "pigeonhole" issues with such political "labels." And, I think one has to realize that many -- if not most -- issues usually have a distinct "label" whereby either they're mostly pro-liberal or mostly pro-conservative (think abortion, off the top of my head). However, the fact of the matter is that many conservatives may agree with a mostly liberal position, and vice versa, depending on the issue. For instance, if you look at the recent imbroglio over torture, many conservatives, led by John McCain, came out forcefully against any use of torture in the "War on Terror."
Utilizing such labels for issues, I've found, can get one in trouble with those with whom you usually agree. My position on the Iraq War has caused some consternation among some of my friends (and Colossus readers ... and former Colossus readers!). I've found that, in the blogosphere, there tends to be an attitude of "let's stick together" on a particular hot topic, no matter if there is some evidence to the contrary. Instead of examining an issue overall, it's automatically "me vs. you." If the president comes out with some new initiative, liberals are automatically against it for the most part, and cons are for it. As a quick aside, in my field of education, I've found an inordinate number of liberals who are beside themselves over No Child Left Behind. Yes, it has problems that can be improved (and are), but Bush has increased federal spending on education massively (much to the chagrin of conservatives) and the focus of NCLB has been on narrowing the "achievement gap" between white students and minority students. Never in my 15 years of teaching have I seen such an intensive focus on this "gap." Imagine that! A "conservative" president championing a program that focuses on the academic achievement of minority students!
What can those of us on the left do to promote civil and constructive discussion and debate with people on the right?
One of my biggest peeves with [some] on the left is the almost autonomic tendency to resort to epithets of "racist," "homophobe," "sexist," or whatever when topics such as affirmative action, gay marriage and workplace pay differential (for example) are brought up. It's an effective tactic, to be sure, since especially "racist" is akin to a modern-day Scarlet Letter. Not many people want to be called such, and will forego more discussion/debate if someone calls them that. I think many of the left need to keep in mind that this is 2006, and many, many conservatives were brought up during the Civil Rights Movement (like me) and whose parents (like mine) imbued in them the values of a Martin Luther King Jr. The problem comes from the continual redefinition of "civil rights"; for instance, today, being against affirmative action means one is against "civil rights." Baloney.
In addition, as I've written often on Colossus and elsewhere, the left is quick to cry "censorship" when those on the other side may favor some gov. wartime press policy for example, or when conservatives advocate boycotting some celebrity for an asinine statement they may have made. However, a cursory look at American universities (controlled by those on the left) reveals how in depth liberals/progressives will go with censorship. "Speech codes" abound; some campuses now even have "free speech zones" where one has to go to hold a discussion; as mentioned previously, topics like affirmative action are such that opposition gets labeled "hate speech" because it is "offensive" to minorities. When conservatives are invited to speak at some function, often the left not only protests (which is a good thing), but attempts to thwart the speaker from delivering his/her message (a bad thing).
In my opinion, those are two biggest factors that annoy conservatives (about liberals) more than anything else when attempting a dialogue on various topics.
