If conservatives believe in universal human rights, such as all the familiar freedoms of speech, thought and association, then those rights must belong to everyone, enemies included. This is the polar opposite of the Progressive mantra of the ends justifying the means. But, given that the Leftie version of the world is so appalling, conservatives' greatest priority must be to stem the implementation and spread of authoritarianism. There is an obvious potential contradiction there. What if the only way to thwart the totalitarians is to ruthlessly deny them some of those universal rights, at least temporarily?
A secondary quandary centers on decorum, or the way we conduct ourselves. The prevailing orthodoxy is that conservatives must be the adults in the room, even if the Progressives act like children. The coda is that, whatever else we do, we must maintain civil discourse. Once again, it isn't difficult to see that a rigorous application of this approach could also be counter-productive. Winning ugly is sometimes necessary and the fact that the losers earned style points is of little consequence. When secondary priorities are given too high a ranking, such that the overarching goal is diluted or relegated, there are going to be problems. And, in conservative world, there are problems aplenty.
So, how it is that a person advocating that there are human values and morals that are transcendent can justify a muscular approach to the Progressive enemy? How is it possible to maintain values and still defeat those bereft of values, because to stoop to their level (while it may win the battle) will simultaneously demonstrate that there is nothing superior about your value system – you will just have shown that it's simply a matter of which advocate is stronger, rather than being to do with what is being advocated.
It's the 'Hitler is drowning' conundrum. Does human decency require us to rescue him? Does the answer depend on what we think his reaction will be if we do? We can't know, ahead of time, whether he will subsequently undergo a Damascene conversion, and feel compelled to live a good life thereafter because of the example we have set. Or whether he will carry on regardless, seeing our action as an act of weakness, a confirmation that he was right about human nature. Or, what if we somehow knew that our intervention would not curb his genocidal tendencies and yet we decide to save him anyway because it's 'the right thing to do'? What about our debt to all those people who will now die because of our intervention?
And what happens when the opposition has removed the method by which we might react correctly? Do we give up and let evil triumph? For example, when small government advocates support the passing of laws that interfere in normal lives, the lazy argument is to simply condemn them without understanding the context. What if the state has already done the interfering and the law in question is necessary to re-institute the status quo, a situation that is increasingly common, especially with various Covid vaccines which don't even have the force of law but nonetheless require a law to refute them?
Does it simply come down to means (albeit good means) still justifying the ends? If we think that it does, we simply run up against the relative values argument again, namely that there is no external moral framework as a guide, just my truths and your truths, but mine are better. This is not the answer. Shouldn't the correct way of doing things be more successful than the incorrect? Shouldn't it be possible to triumph without degrading lofty standards, because how can a belief system that is based on respect for all human rights jettison those beliefs when expedient, in order to win the day and then reaffirm them afterwards, when back in calmer waters? What continuing values can these beliefs have if they cannot triumph on their own?
The morally virtuous executive, with ambitions to reform the system, who must climb the greasy pole, making whatever accommodations as are necessary to maintain their rise, but with the clear intention of reverting to their true character once they've made it....wouldn't they instead be demonstrating that that the values that they allegedly subscribe to are impotent in the face of the Machiavellian competitor? Or, is it only like that because the rules of the game reward bad behavior and the virtuous man, by rising to the top, can change those rules and ensure that his successors may triumph by virtue of their decency instead.
What about today, when the legal system and medical establishment (in particular) have been weaponized against the people, especially those people still in possession of their critical faculties? What should be our approach to structures that ought to be legitimate, that were legitimate in the past, but which have now overstepped their authority, both morally and legally? The law is only legitimate when it accords with constitutional principles. When it doesn't (as with nearly everything Covid related, for instance), we are under no moral obligation to obey. The state won't see it like that, of course, and neither will the judiciary in all probability, but it's the truth nonetheless.
Perhaps all these arguments are secondary to just one overriding concern, which is that evil must not triumph. The trouble with that contention is that it is exactly the position of the Progressive. To them, ends always justifies means, but the ends are incapable of being measured on any objective framework; they are always subjective, because their morality is always shifting according to their ideological whims. This is not where we want to be. Nonetheless, it wouldn't hurt if conservatives were completely clear on what means are unacceptable. To do that, we need to understand what values are set in stone and we also need to be realistic about what behaviors are must-haves and what are nice-to-haves.
The New Testament invocation to turn the other cheek/bring others along by your own example/everyone's a sinner worth saving is clearly going to present a sitting target in the political arena, where the Old Testament an eye for an eye approach is better suited. And so, conservatives need to be flexible. There is no requirement for permanent pleasantness – there can be coldness, fury, condemnation, ruthlessness and steadfastness, because some of the opposition are deeply unpleasant people. Both extremes of the political spectrum are characterized by histrionic, self righteous, bullying behavior. If we are conservatives (or libertarians, or anti authoritarians), we are, by definition, not of that disposition. It may, therefore, be more of an effort if we are to be dominant or harsh. Nonetheless, Christ didn't just turn the other cheek; he also turned the money-lenders out of the temple.
We are under no obligation to give any quarter, or to be polite or to negotiate and debate. We need to be a bit more streetwise and a bit less naïve. We should know that some niceties are no longer relevant and we should be less eager to help the opposition use our decency against us. Above all, we should realize that conservatism isn't about slashing taxes any more – it's about being the antithesis of the authoritarians, about conserving (or reacquiring) basic rights that have been stolen from everyone, whether they know it or not.
Are we obligated to respect the rights of those that don't respect ours? Yes. Are we obligated to be courteous to those who are without honor? No. Can we be harsh and unpleasant to them? Yes. Can we use lies and cheat, just like them? No. Lying and cheating is off the cards for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the small matter of arrogance; the belief that a person is right regardless of the evidence to the contrary and therefore justified in lying to achieve the correct ends. Secondly, a laziness inasmuch as somebody can't be bothered to win the argument, so they lie instead. Thirdly, once a lie is discovered (as most are, in the end) that person forfeits belief in themselves for the next time and every time thereafter. And lastly, in a time filled with lies, people thirst for the truth, not more of the same.
“Substantive justice must always be conservatives’ political lodestar. And if conservatives find themselves irrevocably hamstrung by a peculiar conception of the permissible means to achieve that end, at least over a reasonable duration of time, then it is time to change the means.”(1)
This is as good a place to start as any. Substantive justice is a just behavior or treatment that is fair and reasonable. Perhaps, in the distant past, the hugely subjective nature of this definition would have been less contentious, inasmuch as there would have been much more shared ground on the vexed question of what was fair and reasonable, or indeed just. But, no matter. We should have confidence in our ability to recognize it when we see it and argue for it.
The Left is never anxious to argue its own case in detail – they typically start advocacy immediately after fact free assertions have been made. Ideologues of all stripes have this tendency as a defining characteristic. It's why the science is always settled in their world – any actual debate would reveal the vacuity at the heart of their thinking. This is, of course, a glaring weakness that should be relentlessly exploited, but that doesn't happen. This is because persons of courage are required, people who are unafraid of getting their hands dirty in conflict and that characteristic is not one that widely exists in groups of people who want to conserve things. It is far more likely to be present in those that seek to change things.
Ad hominem attacks and a barrage of name calling (denier, anti-vaxxer, disinformation artist) tend to strike home on people who actually care what other people think, people who are used to the old ways of bipartisanship and compromise. It's an uncomfortable place to be, especially when you don't have to be there if you just play by the rules of the game.
Look at the 'pandemic' as an example of the phenomenon. Even now, when the evidence of malfeasance by governments and Big Pharma is indisputable, when the monumental physical costs of the 'vaccines' is being confirmed by the data from those very same governments, there is still no large scale conservative rebellion against the narrative. The old school conservatives are also all in on the Ukraine propaganda. They don't seem to realize that, when they leap on board the latest talking point or unsubstantiated claim and start mouthing the same platitudes as the enemy, they are alienating their voter base. The last thing that conservatives want is for Republican politicians to leap into bed with the same people who are doing their utmost to ruin America, but senators and representatives seem to welcome the chance to show the opposition some love.
In voting terms, the Democratic Party's secret weapon is Republican politicians. There is a huge disconnect between conservatives and Republicans and large numbers of Americans vote Republican with gritted teeth. It's not just a US phenomenon, either. It's the UK and Europe, too. A savior is not going to come from the existing political ranks. They all lack sufficient courage to refuse to play the game. All of them are compromised. In the UK, the Conservatives are actually the party of government. In the US there are a few mavericks, but even they fail to perform their most basic function, which is to keep the people safe. None of them have the cojones to come out and say that what Biden and his gang are doing isn't a result of incompetence; it's sabotage. They are committed to taking America down.
All of this navel gazing may seem self indulgent, an academic argument, yet more talk when action is what's important. Ordinarily, that might well be so, when the conundrum at issue is simple or, at the very least, a less significant challenge. But this particular issue is the foundational principle of a belief system that has a chance of rescuing us from the globe as Progressive hellhole and, absent a clear and justifiable understanding of what we stand for and why, we will lack conviction and fail to bring others with us.
In short, we would be doing ourselves a massive favor by actually trying to win, first and foremost. Yes, there are some boundaries, but they are far less constricting that Conservative Inc seems to think. There is no good reason to elevate good manners to a position of pre-eminence and there never has been.
I accept that at some point in the dim and distant past, politics was debated against the backdrop of a shared commitment to constitutional norms. When that understanding dissipated – which was as long ago as the 1880s in the US – and one side of the political aisle dedicated itself to undermining the republic whilst pretending to do otherwise, the conservative obsession with cordiality should also have been dispensed with.
In the modern era, the gloves are more obviously off and there is even less excuse to play nice with people who are trying to destroy all that is still good in Western civilization. Conservatism has been synonymous with a cuck mentality for far too long; so much so that, at a political level, it has all but disappeared. In Europe, Hungary and (perhaps) Poland are still governed by right of centre parties, but the rest of the EU simply offers Leftist parties. The Conservative Party in the UK is in government, but they have policies that are indistinguishable from those of the Democratic Party in the US and that administration is radically communistic. So, it comes down to conservatives outside the political class to fight for what a majority still believes. We don't want to be attempting that task with one hand voluntarily tied behind our back.
Citations
(1) Josh Hammer https://amgreatness.com/2022/04/22/against-principled-loserdom/