Mark Franke: What does ‘conservative’ mean?

Most people probably think of the ideological spectrum as a straight line, running left to right or right to left depending on one’s perspective. This places the extremes at the edges, furthest from each other. The middle holds the moderates, those who are considered the most reasonable and open-minded, if one identifies with them, or as the just plain mushy and unprincipled when one views them from either extreme.

That is the textbook illustration, one we all learned in school. But how accurate is it?

During my college years I was attracted by libertarian philosophy. I didn’t consider that to be on the extreme end but traditional conservatives did. And not without reason. There were certainly extremists among the libertarians, not quite anarchists but close to it.

One unoriginal insight I had back then was that the spectrum was not a straight line at all but a circle that didn’t quite meet at the ends. I thought this obvious after finding it difficult to distinguish the most ardent libertarians from self-proclaimed radicals. You couldn’t tell them apart in appearance; everyone wanted to look like a hippie in those days. The absolute disdain for any type of authority was shared as well. They certainly agreed on legalizing marijuana.

Why were the extremists so much alike in those days? Is it still the case today?

Jim Belcher argues in his book “Cold Civil War” that we should think in terms of a quadrant presentation — a square with a horizontal divider and a vertical one.

If we keep a traditional conservative-liberal spectrum for one axis, what is the other? Belcher has a simple but elegant answer: freedom-order.

How does this apply to both sides of the scale?

There are conservatives, and I number myself among them, who value liberty above all. They, we, tend to favor personal charity to government programs, private enterprise to statist capitalism and free choice over mandated behavior. Other conservatives, as exemplified by the common good thinkers, harken back to classical and medieval philosophers to place priority on a well-ordered society to provide justice and protect liberty.

The left leaves me confused. I’m not sure where the woke progressives line up. They might argue that they are for freedom but the freedoms they champion are those most offensive to conservatives. And they certainly do not propound freedom for those who hold opposing viewpoints. Just Google a list of canceled speakers on college campuses and elsewhere.

Belcher’s thesis is that we need to achieve what he calls a “New Vital Center,” a circle in the middle of the graph where the most moderate in each quadrant can meet to forge a workable consensus.

This presents two significant difficulties to my way of thinking. First, can we ratchet down the hyperbolic vocabulary which holds back intelligent discourse? Perhaps, but only if enough of us want to.

Second, and this one may be the more difficult, can we reconcile our most deeply held principles with the pragmatic need to find policy solutions? Not every belief we hold is a hill to die on. Some are, to be sure, but we need to apply Occam’s Razor to our catechism. Moral imperatives must be held but how long does that list need to be? I am wrestling with my own list so I certainly can’t offer advice to others, even should they ask.

I will leave this as an open question, one I would love dearly to discuss with others of whatever ideology but equally concerned with our uncivil society. We had such a discussion last week at an extended family dinner. No one left mad. There is yet hope.

Mark Franke, an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review and its book reviewer, is formerly an associate vice-chancellor at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. Send comments to [email protected].