Conservatives and Problems

In response to the charge the conservatism is not providing answers to the troubles of the moment—and in response to the “reform conservatives” who are trying to fix that, Andrew Sullivan writes:

Conservatism is not, to my mind, about solving problems, which is why it remains a very problematic governing philosophy for modern Americans. It is about a modesty toward what problems government can ever solve. Its responses to emergent questions will not be an attempt to "solve" them, but to ameliorate them with a narrow set of tools. And the narrower the better.

The particular charge Sullivan is answering (from Ezra Klein) is, I think, misinformed and off base. But Sullivan’s response seems not quite right to me either. This is an issue he’s given a lot of thought to, and his point is one with serious foundations in the history of conservatism. But alongside his post he has a painting of Edmund Burke, and if Sullivan is arguing that his definition of conservatism as modesty is also Burke’s, then it’s probably worth a few words of disagreement. This is a larger and more complicated subject than can readily be taken up here, but I think Burke actually wouldn’t agree with the notion that his politics are not about solving problems. What does the modesty Sullivan is after conserve, by itself? Is it merely a negative worldview, aimed at avoiding something? Or does it try to sustain a strong and free society, and respond to challenges to that strength (by government, and by others) with reforms aimed at preserving? It seems to me that Burke's is more like that kind of reform conservatism—which does seek to solve problems both to avoid avoidable harms AND to prevent more wholesale or radical reforms that would seek to undermine the institutions...

A rebuttal to a rebuttal... and one that does not address the words that Sullivan wrote, instead going off on the picture he chose to post next to his article.

Personally, I think Sullivan nailed it, on many counts.

Conservatism is not, to my mind, about solving problems, which is why it remains a very problematic governing philosophy for modern Americans. It is about a modesty toward what problems government can ever solve. Its responses to emergent questions will not be an attempt to "solve" them, but to ameliorate them with a narrow set of tools. And the narrower the better.
To give one example: the gas and climate question. Conservatives will not deny the problem but nor will they impose an onerous or overly-ambitious solution. If the evidence emerges that our carbon dependence is both damaging our environment and empowering our enemies, then change is necessary. But an elaborate cap-and-trade government monitored and imposed scheme is not appealing; or a government-engineered switch to biofuels (unintended consequences). A clear, solid carbon tax that simply encourages individuals and companies to innovate and switch to renewable energy would be a conservative solution. Simple, transparent, and targeted correctly with a minimal growth in government power. If fiscal circumstances permit, you can balance such a tax hike by lowering income tax or providing safety-net subsidies to those most in need as a result. And a truly conservative president would not be afraid to say, in his or her best eat-your-vegetables tone, that this is the only workable solution and that the alternative is worse.
For conservatism to copy liberalism by always seeking "solutions" to problems and convincing "the right coalitions" of people to look to government for the satisfaction of their needs would be a mistake in my view. ...

We're all over the place. We can't prioritize problems, let alone agree on how to solve them.

It always comes down to where people join up with the statists and liberals and where to draw a line.

Example: Cameras on traffic lights. For public safety. What's the fuss? We need to stop speeding and red light running. Don't break the law and you won't have to worry.
Is that something the founders would have advocated?
The problem is that this style of government eventually gets around to everybody. We will all be criminals of some sort. That's the intention.

It's great that people post the writings of the framers and the thoughts of Burke, Smith, etc..but socialism is here. Most people acquiesce to it. Most people even practice it now, as when they twist themselves into knots to show that they would never, never, never offend a member of an anointed pressure group.

Those days of yore hadn’t been subjected to “sound bytes”, and the pace of life was 1 or 2 horsepower versus up to several hundred horsepower as is today.

I’m having a problem with the word “modesty” in sullivans blatherings, and am prejudice towards anything Sullivan thinks anyway. I think he’s a bubble off center.

I’d need to see the entirety of Sullivan’s thoughts to attempt a full analysis of which way to tilt the level, but being as it’s Sullivan Mr. Levin is discussing, I’m going to go on down the FR page finding far more interesting reading.

Conservatives have no problems!

IT's the rest of the tattered populace that elects and re-elects the scoundrels that would (and are) ruin our nation that have the problems.

Unfortunately the unwashed, tatooed idiots, coupled with the washed limousine liberals are the reason for the decline of America.

Well, he's right about conservatism not about solving problems. It's about getting out of the way of individual citizens and industry trying to solve problems.

It's better for specialists to solve problems instead of a bunch of lawyers bent on reelection. All government has to do then is to outlaw what is detrimental to this end.

When there is a need, then Americans will rise to fill the need or solve the problem.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.