What’s in a Name? Part 4
Defining Conservatism/Right-wing
The first thing to understand when talking about so-called “conservatism” is that the left/right political spectrum is a myth. There is a better way to understand the concepts people imply when discussing the supposed left/right spectrum. A way that avoids the misleading or even incoherent portrayals that we often see (such as the supposed “Christian Left”). I have already touched on the importance of wording and covered the problem with the term “conservative.” But how should we best understand and use it?
Conservative, or conservatism, is a term that is identical to the “Right,” anything right-wing, and the Republican party. It is not an ideology; it is an alliance comprising disparate groups that have fundamentally different belief systems. There is going to be an overlap in a lot of beliefs across the conservative movement, but there is no essential core to “conservatism.” The thing that is important to understand here is that a conservative, a Republican, and a right-winger are exactly the same thing. It is a binary thing too, with no meaningful gradation or variance. There is no spectrum of intensity or belief. Whenever somebody says “far-right,” it is pure propaganda and empty rhetoric. That is because these terms don’t refer to what a person believes; they refer to which political alliance a person belongs to, regardless of what they believe.
Think of the Central Powers vs the Allied Powers in World War I. These alliances did not represent belief systems held in common; they represented coalitions of different nations, with different cultures, united for a common cause against a common enemy. In fact, the significance of this is clear when considering that Russia, a member of the Allied Powers in WWI, withdrew (largely because of the Russian Revolution) only to join the Allies in World War II, albeit under the control of the Soviet Union. A vastly different society and culture. After World War II, the Soviet Union ended up in a hostile relationship with the United States and formed the Warsaw Pact in response to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Anybody with a basic understanding of history understands that these alliances consisted of members who absolutely did not need to agree with one another. There was no need for ideological alignment. The Soviet Union was a member of an alliance with the United States and later in an alliance against the United States. Was there an ideological change involved? No, of course not. Because what anybody in either the US or the Soviet Union believed was irrelevant. The point of the alliance was not to unite in belief but to join resources and efforts against an enemy.
Thus are the Republican and Democratic parties. These are not ideological groupings but loosely connected coalitions. We might recognize this, but people still misguidedly think that there is an essential ideology that lies behind each side, which all its members unite around. That is why people think that “conservatism” is something separate from membership in the Republican party or that “conservatism” is a set of beliefs that all conservatives hold.
In reality, conservative is a synonym for Republican. They are one and the same. There is no “conservative” belief system, tradition, essence, or worldview. Whenever people attach “conservative” to something to try to frame it as ideologically distinct, they are misrepresenting what is actually happening.
Take, for example, supposed “Conservative Christianity.” What exactly does it mean to describe a “conservative” Christianity? The reflexive answer is going to be something related to various social issues, like homosexuality or abortion, or with core theologies in Christianity, like the Trinity or Biblical authority.
On the Wikipedia page for Conservative Christianity we are provided a list of some general beliefs associated with this claimed category:
The Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
The doctrine of Trinity, i.e., God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ (i.e., that Jesus is fully God and fully man).
The literal, physical resurrection of Jesus.
Except these aren’t beliefs of “conservative” Christianity. These are the beliefs of Christianity, period! There is no such thing as Christianity without the Trinity (Unitarians are not Christian), the deity of Christ, and the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus. These are essential beliefs to the Christian religion and worldview. Rejecting these beliefs puts you outside of Christianity entirely. So to make these part of “Conservative Christianity” is a pointless and misleading distinction without a difference. It makes the conservative adjective misguided and redundant.
The only reason to make this distinction is to promote the false idea that “non-conservative” Christianity can actually exist. As if “Progressive” or “Liberal” Christianity was actually Christian. This term isn’t just useless; it is outright harmful. It perpetuates a falsehood, that “Christianity” can actually exist outside of true Christianity.
A similar problem exists when we realize just how much this term is used to describe utterly nonsensical things like gay “conservatives”, or conservative atheists. Especially when Wikipedia describes “Conservatism” as “a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology that seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values.” Though they give an important caveat “The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears.”
Of course, we should see the issue here. What are “traditional institutions, customs, and values”? Whose traditions? Whose values? Which institutions? If conservatism just means preserving local tradition than why do we think it is an ideology rather than narrow traditionalism? Just read through the rest of the introductory section of the Wikipedia article to see how arbitrary and ambiguous this is. Supposedly conservatism is “one of the three major ideologies along with liberalism and socialism”, but it is also something that “has varied considerably as it has adapted itself to existing traditions and national cultures. Thus, conservatives from different parts of the world, each upholding their respective traditions, may disagree on a wide range of issues.”
So it means nothing? Conservatives can be whatever and not actually agree on anything? Then what exactly does it even mean? Just look at how Wikipedia ends the section: “Conservatism may be either libertarian or authoritarian, populist or elitist, progressive or reactionary, moderate or extreme.” Supposedly conservatism is so broad that it can be everything, including the opposite of everything!
Therefore, because of all this, we need to understand that conservatism isn’t an ideology at all. There are no “conservative beliefs” or “conservative principles.” In the United States, conservative is a synonym for Republican, which is itself a synonym for belonging on the right or being right-wing. These are all the same thing: membership in a political alliance that is united by circumstance, common enemies, or alienation from the other political alliance (the left/liberals/Democrats). Nothing more.
The conservative movement is just the Republican Party by any other name. There are many beliefs in common across the party, but nothing essential or universal. So we can use the terms right-wing, conservative, and Republican interchangeably.
That said, there is more to the story. Yes, these three terms are all the same thing. Being a conservative is the same thing as just being a Republican, but history has shaped who exactly belongs to each of these two political alliances. Which, over time, solidifies where a person will fall between the two sides.
The unfortunate reality of the United States political system is that only two dominant parties can ever exist, and two parties will inevitably exist, whether or not anyone wants them to. There is something called “Duverger’s Law” that helps explain why this is the case. Election systems that are single-district, winner-takes-all will always result in two parties forming over time. Third parties are not viable in the US because our election system makes partial success for them impossible. A third party could only succeed if it got so popular that it outright supplanted and replaced one of the two currently dominant parties. Once that happened, that “third” party would just become part of a new set of two dominant parties.
So our politics always funnels into a tribal back and forth between two sides. Our winner-takes-all elections force coalitions to form in order to triumph over the competing coalition. These coalitions form despite the significant ideological or worldview differences that exist within each coalition. People are falsely projecting a belief system onto these alliances. This illusion comes from the fact that if you have two, and only two, options to pick from, you will just pick the alliance that is closest to you. The reason could be finding a political alliance that aligns with your top priority social issue, wanting to fit in with friends who are already in one of the two groups, or any other typical ways people sort themselves socially. Often in superficial and conformist ways.
Take someone who is a Christian. What options do you have? You have the Republican Party, which comprises groups that are against abortion, against homosexuality, advocate for some Christian traditions in America, and generally consist of people who are culturally Christian. At least in significant numbers. You have the Democrat Party, which comprises groups that are in favor of abortion, promote homosexuality, and advocate for secularism in America. It also consists of people who are far less culturally Christian. In many cases, cultures that are entirely foreign to Western Christianity. It doesn’t matter how corrupt or flawed either party is. You only have these two choices. You can pretend there are other choices, but only these two parties will ever win elections and put people into positions of power and influence. You are compelled to select the party you are closest to. Even if you disapprove of a lot of what they might do otherwise.
This is why the term “far-right” is inevitably propaganda. The most common source of propaganda, coming from both “sides”, is through an accusation based on guilt by association.
This occurs whenever somebody tries to claim some widely despised group is either “far-right” or “far-left”, as if their membership in either coalition somehow reflects on everyone else in that coalition. Remember, you are forced onto one of two sides. There is no alternative, because our political system rules out anything else. These sides are not collections of people who like, agree with, or even know one another. White supremacists (real ones, not groups that grifters who claim everything is racist label “white supremacist”) do in fact exist on the “right.” White supremacists who vote Republican are conservative. By definition. But that means nothing. It doesn’t mean anyone else on the right approves of them, believes what they believe, or even views them as allies. When the media tries to smear the reputation of conservatism, the right, or the Republican Party by acting as if the mere existence of Republican voting white supremacists is a black mark against them, they are being deceitful.
This same thing applies when in reverse. Though covered in the next part of this series, leftism/liberalism is exactly the same here. It is not a belief system. It is just a different political alliance from which different groups have gathered together. Including groups that exist in hostility with the rest. Because of this, we can, and must, do better to avoid spreading tribal propaganda ourselves. Just as we must avoid giving credence to the typical tribal propaganda we see in the media. Better discourse is both possible and necessary.