Should you listen to an academic or …?
An article by John Fonte published in the June/July 2024 issue of IMPRIMIS, coming out of Hillsdale College, was called “National Conservatism, Freedom Conservatism, and Americanism.”
Fonte is a smart guy – degrees in history and a writer for many publications. And while he parses the conservative movement from William F. Buckley onward to today, he has fallen into the trap of all academics: too many categories for the sake of categories.
As such, he gets tangled up in his isms and loses people missing the point.
Fonte divides things into National Conservatives (NatCons) and Freedom Conservatives (FreeCons).
His explanation is deep, and often meaningful. However, his conclusion on the terminology we should use is “for a new conservative fusionism.” He says the argument isn’t between conservatives and progressives: “it is over the future of the historic American nation, both its creed and its culture.”
Well, he is almost right. But overall, his “terminology” is confusing and his history of conservatism, frankly, a waste of time.
Take “fusionism.”
My degrees are all in English, but I’ve never seen or heard of the word “fusionism.” Wikipedia says fusionism is “In American politics, fusionism is the philosophical and political combination or “fusion” of traditionalist and social conservatism with political and economic right-libertarianism. Fusionism combines “free markets, social conservatism, and a hawkish foreign policy”. The philosophy is most closely associated with Frank Meyer.”
More unnecessary word salad with the isms. In fact, conservative, progressive, liberal all fall short in my opinion to describe what’s going on in the country today.
Fonte goes on to try to explain what’s going on by saying that people who affirm the American nation (regardless of other labels) should be called Americanists. And those who find this problematic and seek to transform America, be called Transformationists. “Today’s polarization should be viewed as an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists.”
Except America has never stopped changing since it was founded. Often, academics invent new words or categories because, well, they have to: they are academics. And frankly, you don’t need new terminology to understand what’s going on around us today.
You need to understand the difference between Good and Evil.
Because that is what the polarization fight all of us are in is about. And while I know it is not acceptable to boil down this divide into a moral argument, there’s no way out of it, and no new language is going to fix it.
This is especially true if you understand the concept of America.
So in a way, while Fonte is correct — it’s a struggle between people who believe in America, and people who don’t— but his piece fails to define “America.” Because if you define it as a “concept,” which it is, then you immediately enter the moral plane of Good versus Evil; you have to decide if those who want to change it are Good or Evil, and if those who want it to stay the same are Good or Evil. Further, exactly what is being changed? How do you change a “concept?”
What is Good and What is Evil
When I told a friend recently that it was the hand of God that saved President Trump from the assassin’s bullet, he said, “How do you know it wasn’t the devil?”
Therein lies the struggle for definitions: which side is Good and which side is Evil? You can’t be both. While both can exist, a thing, a belief, a “principle” can be only one or the other.
All moral decisions, if you understand morality, reside on a relative plane. Depending on your point of view and your willingness to go onto the relative plane with an open mind, you’ll be forced to decide where and when to use the labels of Good and Evil. Here are some examples.
- Were the Kamikaze pilots in WWII evil? Or were they good because they believed in their Emperor?
- Were the men who flew those planes into the trade center evil? Or were they good because they believed they were serving Allah?
- Was the Mexican-American War between the United States and Mexico (April 1846–February 1848) good since it resulted in the United States’ acquisition of more than 500,000 square miles of Mexican territory? Or was it evil because it was conducted to expand the U.S. geography?
You see what I mean about relativity?
Judging any action as Good or Evil depends on where you stand on the moral plane.
Morality is comprised of the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. The key words in the definition are principles and behavior. It’s behavior that determines Good or Evil (actually, your judgment about the behavior). Behavior has been the determinant of morality since Adam and Eve. Judging behavior as Good or Evil depends completely on the individual.
Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: {2:17} But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
It was their behavior that opened up morality, knowledge of good and evil. Disobedience to the “principle” God set for them gave us this gift, or curse depending on your point of view, of knowing Good from Evil. Or so we’re told.
Therefore, part of our undestanding of morality which transcends Fonte’s terminologies is to figure out a simple question: is America Good or is it Evil?
You can say that Fonte’s Transformationists think it is Evil. His Americanists think it is Good. Hence, the relative plane of morality. And the struggle. Respectfully, both sides may not know what they are talking about.
The concept of America is just that: a concept. It is separate from us, lives outside of us, as an idea. Just as God is an idea, like a math formula is an idea, America evolves in our minds as a concept – sometimes defying definition especially with words, which always seem to fall short.
And like all concepts outside of ourselves, you have to define the concept in order to determine your Good or Evil position about it. Here’s an example.
Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
I just finished re-reading this classic, and the first couple of sentences are as follows:
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,-“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
It sounds terrific, and many have used this classic to condone civil disobedience.
But Thoreau is all wrong: no government means anarchy, and while I don’t think he was preaching anarchy, his argument “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right” leads directly to anarchy.
Is Thoreau evil?
Probably not, but his beliefs just might be and lead to evil. Sure, he went to jail for a day for his beliefs, but someone bailed him out. He was against the Mexican-American war. He was against slavery. He considered those Evil. Opposing them made him Good. Or, the concepts of “not war” and “not slavery” were Good in his opinion. And yet, even slavery can be seen as “good” in a relative moral universe by some. And yes, even war.
Believing something Good or Evil doesn’t make it so. So what does?
If morality is comprised of the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, what are those “principles?”
The Do Unto Others…
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a familiar phrase, and it is probably the essence of the moral plane. It means that whatever you do, you should expect to be done to you. Or, what is done to you, you can do to others.
So if we examine Thoreau carefully and follow his thought processes (i.e., his precept that he only does what he thinks is right), then I and you should only do what we think is right. Whatever right means. Re-read the examples I gave earlier with this in mind.
Because therein lies the problem. So while you can read John Donne’s No Man is an Island to understand why Thoreau is wrong, the problem always boils down to a perception of right and wrong, of Good and Evil. And we all know perceptions while they can look like reality, they are not reality.
Doing what I think is right and doing what you think is right will eventually lead to anarchy. Unless we can come to some agreement on the principles we’re talking about (i.e., government, laws, etc.), society falls apart. Just read history as I’m sure Fonte did.
So from the outset human beings have to agree on some principles of behavior around the ideas that present themselves to us. And one of these ideas under discussion in Fonte’s essay is the idea called America.
What is America?
As stated, America is a concept. You can call it a country, but its essence is an idea formulated in the revolution where people broke from a government to be “independent.” There is a hint of irony in this in that these people formed another “government” after breaking with one.
I don’t want to rehash why they did that. Or make the judgment call now. But it happened.
America’s founding fathers gave a lot of thought to what they were doing – and like Thoreau, they took a stand. Here’s the last paragraph of the declaration of independence they made (bold is mine):
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It was more than a single person doing this; and note their reliance on “Supreme Judge” and “divine Providence” (aka God). They proceeded to fight a war for their “separation” and won that war. Note, too, the lower-case “united” in front of States. These were “states” that subsequently had a lot of discussion about what “governing” means and still do because of the way the founding documents were written.
And here we are today, in a situation that Fonte calls an existential struggle between Americanists and Transformationists. Really sounds and looks oddly familiar, doesn’t it?
The British thought they were “right” in the revolutionary war. Those people who signed the declaration thought they were “right.” It took a war to decide things, but your “transformationists” argue that somehow, winning the war doesn’t make America right today. Or is it just their “idea” of America. Same holds true for his Americanists.
War
The one thing we know without doubt is that war will change things – everything. It is why it is the last resort of disagreements between people, nations, religions. And it’s never final because there is always another war, another concept, another belief.
It’s important to point out Thoreau’s thoughts about “majority” rule (bold is mine):
After all , the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?-in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
While it sounds terrific, Thoreau’s argument falls apart with the inclusion of “conscience.”
Conscience is that thing that helps us “feel” right or wrong, good or evil, and unfortunately, not everyone feels the same way about things, do they?
Thoreau is essentially an idealist. But the fact is, citizens MUST resign their conscience to legislators, or there will be chaos – unless you build into your system a way to CHANGE FROM WITHIN.
In theory, the concept of America is just that because if you look at that concept over time, it has changed, sometimes without violence (new laws), sometimes with violence (the civil war).
It is still changing. It will still change. And like all “struggles” in the past, it’s going to be a war that decides what it changes to and not the words of an academic.
The only question is what kind of war will be? A war of words? Or…
My hope is that the concept of America doesn’t turn out to be a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.