Conservatism, then and now

National Review in 1957:

"The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could."

And today:

"One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals...

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless."

Or as Andrew's reader sums it up:

National Review in 1957: Blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote, of course, because 10-year olds aren't allowed to vote. And besides, it wouldn't do them any good to vote anyway.

National Review in 2009: Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, of course, because brothers aren't allowed to marry. And besides, it wouldn't do them any good to marry anyway.

Andrew concludes:

I wonder how deeply National Review's editors considered the final sentence of their repellent editorial:

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.

Does Rich Lowry believe his magazine's position from 1957 should be held up similarly today as a prophetic warning? Was Barack Obama's election the awful consequence of giving the Negroes the vote they didn't know what to do with?

Maybe that was indeed why they "resisted." And maybe gay really is the new black.

I think the pattern in these quotes is a useful reminder of why I'll always be libertarian —or at least "socially liberal"— instead of conservative. National Review was founded in 1955, but had it existed 45 years earlier I bet you could have found essays against women having the right to vote. (Like this recent one, only more pointed and eloquent because the cause wasn't lost)

In a 1975 interview with Reason magazine, Ronald Reagan said:

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom"

This was arguably true once, only to be killed off by Karl Rove, George W. Bush, and his defenders. But even in Reagan's time that desire for individual freedom had limits. Conservatives are ever wary of expanding individual freedom to new, previously discriminated-against individuals.

At worst, preserving the status quo becomes a sort of moral fanaticism.

Robert Stacy McCain recently wrote in the American Spectator that opposing same-sex marriage is a hill conservatives should fight and die on. He opens by discussing a quote from William F. Buckley Jr., who founded National Review in 1955:

Back in the 1970s, [Buckley]. was invited to debate feminist author Germaine Greer at the Oxford Union, but found that he and Greer were unable to agree on the wording of the resolution to be debated. After a long exchange of trans-Atlantic telegrams, Buckley in exasperation cabled his final proposal: "Resolved: Give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile."

In that simple phrase, Buckley summed up a basic truth about the conservative instinct. Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand.

So in being for same-sex marriage, am I abetting a group of organized radicals? Interesting. But Buckley also acknowledged in 2004 that:

"Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

He was writing about legalizing weed, but I think the point broadly applicable. Sadly it seems many conservatives have now delved head first into fanaticism "against the coming storm".

Update: Wilkinson has a good rebuttal of Stacy's post.