Andrew Sullivan writes, "Conservatism is not, to my
mind, about solving problems, which is why it remains a very
problematic governing philosophy for modern Americans. It is about
a modesty toward what problems government can ever solve." Sullivan
is absolutely right that this is, or ought to be, a valid
description of the conservative mindset or conservatism as a
temperament. This is something putative conservatives have
forgotten to our detriment. But that doesn't necessarily tell us
what people who have a conservative temperament should do when
engaged in electoral politics or governing. If a group is involved
in these two tasks, it must put together coalitions that can win
elections and it must be up to the job of doing the work of
government.
So while I'm tempted to agree with Sullivan when he writes, "For
conservatism to copy liberalism by always seeking 'solutions' to
problems and convincing 'the right coalitions' of people to look to
government for the satisfaction of their needs would be a mistake
in my view," that cannot be the approach of conservatives who
actually get involved with politics and government rather than
writing and blogging. Maybe "solutions" is the wrong word for what
government can provide, but people who are going to participate in
politics and government have to, well, campaign and govern
effectively despite having a more limited view of what politics and
government can realistically accomplish. Even if you believe
government is usually the problem rather than the solution, you
have to have a political strategy to contain government, a social
base that will support you, and an agenda by which you can pursue
policies to limit government.
UPDATE: Yuval Levin adds some thoughts. I should add that I don't
think conservatism properly understood denies that politics can be
used to solve problems -- conservatism just understands the scope
of what politics can solve to be limited and prefers modesty in the
proposed solutions.
topics:
Conservatism
