Conservatives…
and the State

Back on 02 March 2008, I posted on “Who are the Conservatives?” in light of the criticism of John McCain as not being conservative. I opined that being a conservative is not about conserving what or where we are now, but rather about reclaiming permanent things with “redeemed imagination”. The principle is that modernism, and now post- modernism, has corrupted the western culture’s view of what is important and those permanent things need to recaptured. But, that in itself is pretty unsatisfactory. How is this applied in looking at the world? We will try to answer that over the next few weeks with reference to certain specific topics.

We start with the state, not Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. but the governing authorities whomever they may be. Geo. W. Bush is portrayed by the media and his political adversaries as a conservative. But, is he really when it comes to the state? On his watch, the federal government underwent unbelievable growth. He liked all kinds of spending bills and that extended the power of the state. So, too did the expansion of bureaucracy. TSA alone added thousands of individuals to the government payroll, and the increased emphasis on security has spread the tentacles of the state further into the lives of the citizen.

Most government spending is to enhance the state’s position in the lives of those living in the state. And, state authority and power is not the goal of the truly conservative. Read what Robert Nisbit says about state power:

The contemporary state with all its apparatus of bureaucracy, has become more powerful, more cohesive and is ordained with more power than at any time in history…the whole tendency of modern political development has been to enhance the role of the political state as a direct relationship among individuals, and to bring both its powers and its services even more intimately into the lives of individuals.

That was written in 1953! How much more appropriate today. The massive leviathan state of today with all its intrusions and influence in individual lives would make Nisbit wince.

Conservatives oppose the growth of state power. Why? Because it shifts allegiances away from home and community, local influences, to regional, state and federal influences. The power over individual lives becomes vested in the state, and in the US, especially the federal government. The live of the individual is more and more affected by power centers removed from him when state power grows. And, the larger the state grows; citizens take on more of an impersonal, numerical identity. You are more likely to be on a first name basis with your mayor or township supervisor than your governor, state or federal representatives or anyone in the Executive Branch of the federal government. At least you local leaders have a better chance of knowing who you are…that you have a name! The state rarely knows you so there is no personal touch or compassion in you relationship to the state as there are with family, neighborhood and community of place.

If you have ever had to deal with the bureaucracy of the state or federal government, you understand. Your issue better be one that has stock solutions. Square pegs find no answers in a bureaucracy of round holes. The state is not in the business of addressing your particular problem and it cannot tailor a specific solution not allowed by the operations manual of the bureaucrat. The idea that “I am from the government and I am here to help you” is indeed a joke. The state is not about individual problems; it is about government solutions.

That is to be expected when the seat of power and authority is far removed from where you live your daily life. The bureaucrat in Harrisburg or Washington is not concerned with you as a person and how your problem affects you. His mission is to field your question, open his little box of pat answers approved by the state and see if you fit the profile for “help” he is permitted to dispense. If you do not fit the profile, then you are passed off to another bureaucrat. The mass of red tape and paper work needed to address the simplest question is often mind boggling.

For the conservative, the role of the state is to maintain order so its people can live in peace and safety and punish wrongdoers while promoting good. A friend of mine used to say: The role of government is to deliver the mail, protect the borders and keep the highways open…and they do a lousy job at all of them!” With that many can concur. At what are they good? Taxing and spending comes to mind. Redistributing income so that incumbent politicians can hand out our money to those who are best suited to see that they are re-elected. The expansion of the power of the state permits the state to control more of our lives and keeps those who exercise that power to remain the entrenched political elite. We do not have a King George, we have KINGS George!

The expansion of state power is not a tenant of conservatism. Conservatives place a premium on the individual, his family, his local community and local associations as being most important in forming life and character and permitting an individual to flourish. What Burke called “the little platoons.” For the conservative, the power of the state is to be limited for a healthy society. There is little doubt that the power of the state over the lives of the people dramatically increased under Geo W. Bush’s stewardship of the USA.

As we approach the November election, it is pretty clear that neither major candidate is a “limiting state power” kind of guy. Neither is likely to capture the vision of my friend as to the role of government. The real question may be: Can the present political climate ever produce a conservative candidate who wants to recapture the idea of limited state power for the good of the country? That is, one who values family, community and place as the power centers of life over and above the influence of the state.