Principled Vigilance: Conservatism's Battle for Its Soul
The ascension of Donald Trump as the supposed bulwark against cultural decline presents an intricate paradox within American conservatism. His rise, though superficially alluring to many disaffected by the status quo, symbolizes a perilous compromise that has insidiously eroded the foundational tenets of true conservatism. This development is not merely a political curiosity; it starkly highlights the imminent danger of sacrificing enduring principles for the sake of ephemeral political gain.
The allure of Trumpism lies in its apparent defiance against a perceived cultural decay. For many, Trump's brazen rhetoric and unorthodox style represent a refreshing departure from the polished ineptitude of establishment politicians, trust me I hear it a lot. His narrative, spun as a valiant crusade against a corrupt elite, resonates with a populace yearning for a champion. Yet, this resonance obscures a disquieting truth: in embracing Trumpism, conservatism risks forsaking its soul for the fleeting thrill of populist victories.
Conservatism, as articulated by the intellectual giants upon whose shoulders I stand, is a philosophy rooted in moral integrity, principled governance, and a deep respect for the inherited wisdom of our institutions. It is a philosophy that prizes the preservation of societal order and the gradual evolution of our traditions over the reckless pursuit of change for its own sake. The conservative mind, as delineated by Edmund Burke and later by Russell Kirk, champions prudence, continuity, and a humble acknowledgment of our fallibility.
Personally, as an atheist raised with Judeo-Christian values, I find my moral code selected from these principles, which I both respect and prefer. Despite my lack of religious belief, or perhaps because of it, I see an even greater need to base my values on principled integrity, as with anyone I make concessions, but if I do it's often due to circumstances or a change of mind. This individual journey underscores a broader truth: our conservatism must be grounded in a moral framework that transcends mere expediency. So seeing those who claim to be driven by faith find excuses to violate their stated principles especially for the purposes of politics it is difficult for me to leave alone.
The Clint Eastwood Fallacy
A recent and particularly irksome comparison was made between Donald Trump and Clint Eastwood's iconic "Man with No Name" character. As someone who holds a deep affection for Wild Western iconography and considers this character one of my favorites, I took more offense to this mischaracterization than I could to an attack on Christian leaders. The Man with No Name, often perceived through the lens of cinematic minimalism, embodies a profound adherence to principles that align with the quintessential tenets of individualism and justice. This character, steeped in the spaghetti Western genre, eschews the conventional trappings of heroism, presenting instead a stoic figure whose actions resonate with a deeply ingrained moral code, a deep moral code that he takes with him everywhere and exists in his every action, even when not made apparent. At first glance, the Man with No Name appears to be a cipher, a near-mythical figure defined by his laconic demeanor and enigmatic presence. Yet, beneath this veneer lies a character of considerable depth, whose unwavering commitment to his personal ethos sets him apart from the morally ambiguous world he navigates. The character eschews verbose declarations, instead allowing actions to speak with a clarity that transcends mere words. This is the anthesis of Donald Trump, who is consistently a man of lots of talk and little to no action.
The hallmark of the Man with No Name's principled nature is his consistent pursuit of justice. In a lawless landscape where corruption and brutality are rampant, he stands as an arbiter of a rough-hewn but unequivocal moral order. This is evident in his dealings with both allies and adversaries, where he maintains a stringent code of honor. His interventions, often subtle, yet decisive, invariably tip the scales in favor of the oppressed and the downtrodden.
Moreover, Eastwood's character operates with an acute sense of personal responsibility. Unlike the archetypal hero who might seek external validation or reward, the Man with No Name is driven by an internal compass. This autonomy, this refusal to be swayed by external incentives, aligns with the conservative ideal of self-reliance. He is not beholden to any authority but his own, a solitary figure whose integrity remains intact amidst chaos and treachery.
In essence, the Man with No Name exemplifies a conservative ideal: a rugged individualist who embodies the virtues of self-determination, justice, and moral clarity. His principles are not worn on his sleeve but are indelibly etched in the fabric of his actions. Through Clint Eastwood’s portrayal, we are reminded that true heroism often speaks in whispers rather than shouts, and that the noblest principles are those that guide one’s actions consistently, even in the absence of recognition or reward. This is not the concept of giving up principles for the sake of a meager win, this is the concept of being the principle in an unprincipled world. This is what principled conservative philosophy is meant to be and what every conservative should stive to be.
The Trumpian turn embodies a stark departure from these ideals. It substitutes the slow and thoughtful deliberation of conservative governance with the bombastic immediacy of populist fervor. It replaces the principled stand on moral integrity with an opportunistic embrace of whatever momentary advantage can be seized. In this transformation, conservatism loses its distinctiveness, merging into the indistinguishable morass of political expediency.
The danger of this compromise cannot be overstated. When conservatism is reduced to a vehicle for populist discontent, it forfeits its claim to moral authority. It becomes a reactionary force, defined not by its adherence to timeless principles, but by its opposition to whatever current threat is perceived. In this state, conservatism drifts aimlessly, unmoored from the anchors of its philosophical heritage, and adrift in a sea of self-imposed contradictions. Listless vessels even…
For conservatives the task before us is clear: we must restore a conservatism that upholds moral integrity above fleeting victories. This restoration demands a recommitment to the principles that have long defined the movement. It requires us to resist the seductive allure of easy wins and to instead champion the enduring values of order, prudence, and continuity. It calls for a conservatism that is willing to endure short-term defeats in the service of long-term truths.
In this endeavor, we must look to the exemplars of our tradition. We must draw inspiration from Burke’s insistence on the moral imagination, from Kirk’s reverence for the permanent things, and from William F. Buckley’s unyielding dedication to principled discourse. We must reaffirm our commitment to a conservatism that is intellectually robust, morally sound, and unwaveringly principled. In an unprincipled world where everyone wants a win to make their name, be a Man With No Name
.