Ethical Conservativism

The concept of "conservative" in American politics is generally defined by those who favor traditional values. While this is often true, a general assumption is made by critics of conservatism on the shallow basis that it is "old" or "outdated" logic of a out-of-touch group of ignorants. This is of course a blatant "straw man" depiction which does not question whether tried and tested ideas might simply be right.

Nevertheless, to be fair, we should also note that the reason they characterize conservatives this way is not without some reinforcement. It is true that some conservatives know their conservative values but do not know why they hold them. Conservatives know the views of their ideology but may not have taken the time to formulate credible arguments. This does not mean they are ignorant, but rather that in many cases they are just busy living life in the inheritance of what conservative policies have brought about in the first place.

On the other hand, I would argue that the same is true of the Left as well. They also tend to follow anti-conservative voices and rarely check their sources or logic. This comes out when you see them supporting blatantly illogical and immoral policies just because it is the current Liberal mantra.

So when I speak of "ethical conservatism" I speak of not just knowing what you believe politically, but knowing why you believe it and further taking the time to formulate or learn of valid truthful defenses of your political beliefs. Yet greater still an ethical conservative is one who is willing to cross current party lines on subjects for the sake of truth, while remembering the balance of supporting largely conservative bodies and parties for the sake of unified accomplishment.

The ethical conservative should also embrace cobelligerence (as defined by Francis Schaeffer) as a viable political maxim. For example, while moral Jewish, Protestant, and Catholics do not agree on theological issues, they nevertheless have moral common ground on which they should stand politically unified for the greater good, while maintaining their separate institutions. This does not mean that theological differences should ever be set aside, but merely held in check during political cooperation. For the Conservative Christian, cobelligerence should be walked cautiously and contentiously to avoid compromise of faith. For in reality the Christian doctrine is to be applied to the whole of life.

Now the opposite of the term cobelligerence also implies that we define a belligerent. Therefore we must be willing to call wrong as "wrong" and politically separate with even Christians (professing and Pseudo-Christians) who are not willing to stand against blatant immorality. The danger of this last statement is that some will not have an unbalanced understanding of Christian liberty and practice or confuse that statement as a mandate for abuse and religious legalism. However let's be clear, separation is not "hate" as some Liberals like to pretend, if that were true then they are guilty of that same "hate" themselves toward conservatives.

As to "Ethical" it is impossible to define all ethics even as we cannot define all of truth exhaustively. However, it is possible to determine the basis of "life and godliness", namely in the Ten Commandments. These commandments contains universal moral precepts that all of the aforementioned religious systems hold to explicitly.

By now, many of you might equate what I have said thus far with the "Moral Majority". There is some correlation but I believe that while the Moral Majority made it's impact historically during the Reagan years, the philosophy behind the Moral Majority was never fully understood or conveyed. It is significant to understand what Francis Schaeffer inspired in Fallwell and others.

The ideology of Ethical Conservatism must grow and prevail not based on a political agenda but based on the power of truthful ethics and the foundations of America. We as a people need to reach for ethics in ourselves that produce right policy and government and not an attempt to produce policy that hopes to produce social ethics. This is the key difference.

There is a saying that came out of the Moral Majority era that said, "You can't legislate morality". It is important to dissect this statement. Firstly, what law is not moral? I challenge you to find one law on any book that does not have moral implications. Likewise, it should be noted that you can legislate morality, but it does not guarantee change when lawlessness abounds in a "social jurisprudence" political climate. Social jurisprudence, the relativistic rule based on the popular social voice, in our day has morphed into rule by special interest. It is not based on the populus but rather based upon who has the loudest political pulpit. So then real political change must take place on the grass roots level communicating basic human rights and the basis of ethics as well as in the realm of public politics.

Finally, it is important for the Christian to note that absolute harmony is not available in this life, nevertheless it is our right and responsibility to govern rightly. It is a moral mandate and we should not dismiss politics as somehow non-relational to our life. We are bound by duty to address any mode of political system that challenges right ethics. Thus we are obligated to vote and to vote responsibly and be involved in the political system in the level that we are able by the gifts we have been given by our creator.

Consider now... are you an Ethical Conservative?