I was raised in a family that was politically as well as theologically conservative. As a young woman in the 1980s, virtually all of my Christian friends ascribed to conservative political ideas.
More recently, though, progressive politics seems to have an appeal for Christians, even those who take their faith seriously. I am often surprised to hear friends who share many of my theological views express support for politically left-wing ideas.
This has challenged me to take a step back and think more carefully about why I call myself a political conservative. Here are my top three reasons.
Progressivism is based on a false understanding of human nature. Many progressive ideas are founded on an expectation that human nature is malleable. While people seem to be capable of great evil, left-wingers believe that in fact this is a result of poor education, poverty, and oppression. With social justice reforms, proper education, and provision of basic needs, the human race can evolve and transform itself into one capable of living in consistent peace, harmony, and altruism.
Conservatives, on the other hand, know that human nature has remained fundamentally unchanged throughout thousands of years of existence. This is consistent with the Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity as created in the image of God and yet having a tendency towards corruption. No level of education or social engineering can alter these two aspects of reality.
As Solzhenitsyn said, “The line separating good and evil passes through every human heart.”
In addition to the capacity for both good and evil, there are other realities of human existence that are often ignored or downplayed by progressives, such as the dignity and necessity of work, the essential role played by the nuclear family, the inescapable fact of human religiosity, and the nature of the social fabric. The progressive embrace of transgender ideology is an extreme example of the tendency to deny realities that our Founding Fathers believed were rooted in “the laws of nature and nature's God."
Dennis Prager points out that in order to built a system, you have to know your raw materials. To build a political or social system, you have to know what human beings are. A political system founded on a false understanding of human nature is doomed to failure—and to cause great suffering in the process of failing.
Progressivism is shaped by a impoverished moral vision. Jonathan Haidt has done many years of research on the moral compasses of people of differing political persuasions. He documented his findings in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.
In it he examines moral sensitivities or principles across the political spectrum in a variety of cultures. He found that “liberals” have an extremely high value for caring, compassion, and preventing suffering. They also place some value on “liberation”—obtaining freedom from oppression. But the further left a person is, the less value he will have for other moral principles—those that Haidt labels “authority,” “loyalty,” and “sanctity.”
Conservatives, on the other hand, place fairly equal value on a wide variety of moral factors. While they are motivated by compassion, they feel a need to balance it with other concerns such as respect for leaders, patriotism, responsibility, and honor.
The abortion issue epitomizes this well. Conservatives place a premium on human life—an example of Haidt's “sanctity” principle—and believe that protecting innocent lives is an essential aspect of a good society. So the pro-life movement mixes legal action to protect the unborn and vulnerable with compassionate help for women with difficult pregnancies.
The progressive movement, in contrast, has little time for the sanctity principle. The left-wing position on abortion is almost entirely motivated by the felt needs of women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. The concept of the sanctity of sexuality is virtually lacking, so there is no motivation to encourage abstinence among young people or support any policies that reflect a vision of a transcendent purpose for sexual behavior.
Although Haidt spent his life identifying as a liberal, he seems to come to the conclusion that conservatism is better suited to serve as a basis for a moral society, due to the superior richness of it moral sensibilities.
Progressivism is rooted in hubris. The very nature of progressivism is to encourage change. The vision, of course, is change for the better—more freedom, less suffering, more peace, less poverty.
But as Dr. Jordan Peterson has pointed out, change is hard. To make a substantive change in a complex system, such as a modern political state, and know for sure that the full effect of the change will be positive is almost impossible.
In fact, the more prosperous, stable, and free a society is, the more difficult it is to make changes for the better—to ensure that the positives brought about will outweigh potential loses of liberty and security.
And in the most free and prosperous society that has ever existed in the history of mankind, the likelihood that sweeping, revolutionary change will result in a net gain is pretty close to zero.
This is why conservatives know that change needs to happen in small increments. In that way the impact of the change can be evaluated and corrected before disaster occurs that will affect many generations.
But progressives are always sure that their changes will be positive. They are sure that they can create a vast welfare state without also creating dependence and generational poverty. They are sure they can advocate for sexual freedom without undermining the stability of the family. They are sure they can implement socialism without destroying economic opportunity. And they are sure they can promote secularism without losing the principles of human dignity that are rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization.
This is hubris, however well-intentioned. It has been proven a tragic hubris in the revolutions of the past 200 years and is operating as a dangerous hubris in American society today.
The American Founders brought about a revolution, but it was virtually unique in the history of the world. It was rooted in the wisdom of the great philosophers of the past, a commitment to the principles inherited from the English traditions, and reverence for the teachings of the Christian scriptures that expound the laws of Nature's God.
In many ways, the American Revolution was a “conservative” revolution.
Convention of States is also bringing about a revolution, but again, it is a return to the wisdom and vision of our forefathers, to principles of self-governance, to a society rooted in a true understanding of human nature and the separation of powers.
Come join the revolution!
