Clarity on Conservatism, Part II: Old School vs. New School

Old School vs. New School

“Way back” in 1924 G. K. Chesterton neatly summed up the status quo between Conservatives and Liberals:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives [Liberals]. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.

Such was the state of affairs in his day, and this has been “traditional” conservatism ever since. I call it Old-School Conservatism. Recently, however, we’ve seen the rise of a New-School Conservatism, which others have variously distinguished by expressions like Conservative Republican, Traditional Conservative, Grassroots Conservative, True Conservative, etc.

Locally, this came about roughly as follows: North Idaho Republicans, for example, have claimed to be real Republicans. Grassroots Conservatives countered by distinguishing themselves as conservative Republicans. NIR immediately responded by appropriating the exact same term. Then grassroots Conservatives tried again, adopting the label traditional conservative Republican. NIR once again did the monkey-see-monkey-do.

Yes, some RINOs are just flat-out lying because they consciously want to destroy conservatism — of any kind — from inside. But to be fair, others may feel they are actually telling the truth — but that would be according to the perverse notion of “traditional conservative” that Chesterton has exposed. This is why the qualifying labels ‘traditional’, ‘real’, and even ‘true’ don’t work. ‘Grassroots’ is better, but is still subject to being co-opted by Liberals, via astroturfing. It also fails to name what is being conserved, and is thus inherently subject to manipulative or changing interpretations.

There is a mass of Loony Leftist Lemmings charging toward a cliff edge. They strive to drive all to the dive…into Chaos. They can’t help themselves. The human race has an instinctual desire for Unity. The Old-School “traditional” Conservatives stand in front of the lemmings. They see that such a headlong rush is ill-advised. They think their job is to slow things down and put some order into the business. But their back is to the cliff edge, and that they cannot see. Even less do they see the jagged rocks hundreds of feet below.

What they don’t get is that the destination has to change. Otherwise, sooner or later, the result will be the same: a massive mess of shredded flesh and shattered bones. And they will be at the bottom.

The job of Conservatives must no longer be to merely slow the rush to ruin, but to reverse it — and hard. This means a redefinition of what it means to be a Conservative. According to the criteria I gave in my last article, this New School will clearly identify what Conservatives should be conserving. This object of our conservation will be a thing of permanent value; in fact the very glue that holds any society together.

What is this social glue? It is Natural Law.

Okay, maybe that went over like a lead balloon, but bear with me. Though Natural Law is not the most widely known concept these days, there are two simple things that can be said that give a good idea of what it is, and of its capital importance.

First, it includes the laws of physics, biology, human nature, and all other laws in the physical reality of things, that give order, predictability and harmony to the universe. Natural Law can be called the application of basic reasoning to this data of Nature, so as to form good rules for behavior.

Specifically as applied to human societies, it can be expressed very simply, as follows:

Natural Law is the Ten Commandments, as explained by Tradition.

Please note the capital T in Tradition! We are not talking about the myopic “tradition” that Chesterton decries, but the consensus of all human history.

There is more to say about Natural Law, of course, but that would be the subject of an entire essay. Regarding the “as explained by Tradition” part, it’s probably enough here to just give one concrete example. There is a Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. Tradition says this refers to innocent human beings, and does not refer to capital punishment. (See Rom. 13:4). Abortion, therefore, is radically contrary to Natural Law, but capital punishment, if properly levied, is not contrary to it at all.

Natural Law is the basis of all peace, order, and the common good of society. As history shows, society degenerates to the extent it ignores this principle. A nation may even be destroyed as a result, as in the case of the Roman Empire. The Founding Fathers of the United States certainly knew this. (See Weaving Natural Law Back Into Our National Story). If then there is any “existing order of things” worth preserving and promoting, Natural Law is right at the foundation, holding everything else together.

I therefore suggest that this rising New School be called Natural-Law Conservatism. This is true political conservatism, and really always has been and always will be.

In contrast therefore, modern Liberalism is the advocacy of a false freedom, contrary to Natural Law, to be enforced on all by a Leftist Totalitarian State.

Now, even after pondering at length what I’ve said about Natural Law — as you surely should — you may ask: But wouldn’t a permanent idea of conservatism include more than just devotion to Natural Law? What about Religion?

That question will be covered in my next article.

Michael McGowan is chair and treasurer of the Kootenai Freedom Caucus. This op-ed represents his personal views, and he is not speaking on behalf of the caucus.

About Staff Writer

The Gem State Chronicle brings you news and analysis that empowers you to make positive change in Idaho. Established 2022.

• More Posts(120)