“Trust me, I’m a conservative.”

That, apparently, was the message from Atlantic online blogger and columnist Andrew Sullivan during his appearance on the Colbert Report on Comedy Central on Nov. 3.

Sullivan was on the show to talk about the achievements of the Obama administration to date. And he did indeed try to defend his hero in the White House.

Quite incredibly, for instance, he attributed the resistance of Iranian students and others to the regime in Tehran to President Obama. The popular resistance to the crooked reelection of Ahmadinejad wouldn’t have happened, he averred, without Obama having given his famous speech in Cairo.

Such a conclusion is downright insulting. Those in Iran who have called for freedom from tyranny in their nation have done so with amazing courage and restraint. Many have given their lives. And yet, for Sullivan, credit goes not to those standing up for their beliefs and facing dangerous reprisals as a result, but to the President of the United States. Again, not only is this an outrageous exaggeration, it is an insult to those who have suffered and died in the cause of freedom.

Perhaps worse, however, is Sullivan’s sophisticated attempt to discredit conservatives. His skill as a fine propagandist in this effort was on display on the Colbert report. During the interview, Sullivan called himself a conservative, then detailed his support for, and happiness with, the Obama administration. He had hoped, he said, that Obama would craft thoughtful policies that all “reasonable” people, like himself, could appreciate, even if they weren’t Democrats. By definition, then, any conservative who does not agree with Sullivan in supporting Obama is unreasonable.

He should not be allowed to get away with a slippery attempt of this sort to discredit conservatives. Opposition to the president (any president) is the birthright of all Americans, and it is certainly not unreasonable. It is particularly not unreasonable for conservative Americans to oppose the current president.

To understand why, it is necessary to define what is meant by conservatism. The best, and only accurate way to do that is to define any brand of conservatism by that which it seeks to conserve. In the United States, proper conservatism seeks to conserve the foundational legal doctrines of the nation, specifically the philosophy that informs the Declaration of Independence and the legal framework limiting the reach of the federal government created by the Constitution. Thus, an honest American conservatism opposes federal expansion beyond the scope of government envisioned by the Founders.

This is not the same conservatism that prevails elsewhere. In England, where Sullivan is from, conservatism is a different matter entirely. It would seek to preserve the parliamentary system and common law, as well, perhaps, as the monarchy and even the notion of the greater commonwealth that exists in the now broken remains of the old British Empire. This is a more expansive conservatism, one that has had much impact on American conservatives, but one that nonetheless is a distinctly different species of political thought.

Other conservatisms diverge even more widely. For instance, Russian conservatism is one that seeks to retain a strong central state, perhaps even such a state based on communist single party rule. If this seems completely at odds with the traditional American conservatism and its albeit increasingly tenuous devotion to limited government, you’d be right. Yet, in Russia, this is conservatism.

There are also other kinds of conservatives. Consider Catholic conservatives. These in many cases share traits with American conservatives, but are mainly focused on preserving the traditional “marks” of the Church (one, holy, catholic, and Apostolic). This is particularly the case with Apostolicity and its implications for the structure of the Catholic Church. Radicals in the church want to allow married priests, women priests, gay marriage, and a variety of other innovations that conservative Catholics oppose on grounds that such things undermine Apostolic tradition.

Such conservatism is definitely “conservative” in that it seeks to preserve, or conserve, some societal or cultural structure -- but it has little in common with American conservatism properly understood.

Where does that leave Andrew Sullivan? As a self-professed conservative, there must be something he wishes to preserve. Whatever it is, it is most definitely not the limited government constitutionalism of American conservatism.

And it is thoroughly unreasonable for him to think that Americans will fall for his slippery, propagandistic effort to marginalize, and even demonize, freedom loving American conservatives.

Add comment