What are the Metaphysical Premises of Conservatism?

This is the first of a series of posts on political philosophy, occasioned by my present participation in the Burke to Buckley Fellowship through the National Review Institute. As a disclaimer, many of the examples cited will be from Scripture, including the first few chapters of Genesis, the early history of Israel, the parables of Christ, etc. This by no means is to suggest that conservatism is limited strictly Christians – though, as the below post will argue, most of the philosophical premises of conservatism themselves follow from monotheistic theological premises. Moreover, the examples I’ll be citing do not require from the reader any particular stance on their historicity one way or another, merely that they contain theological truths to which even non-Christian would assent. My fellow Christians do of course see the Scriptures as more than merely philosophically true in places, but conservatism is not a religion; as a philosophy and ideology, it does not speak to Revelation, only the natural knowledge of God.

***

Conservatism is a word which has been too broadly applied to too many disparate groups and individuals for any one definition to be all encompassing. In setting out to enumerate the metaphysical premises which underlie conservatism, the listed items will be true of a large portion of those to whom the appellation applies, but by no means all.

Broadly speaking, there are two main ways in which the word ‘conservatism’ is used. The first is as a set of interrelated ideas, principles, and values, and the second as a methodology by which to decelerate, arrest, or reverse the rate of societal change. Whereas for the former conservatism is a fixed destination, with the road signs pointing to it giving different directions relative to its location, for the latter such road signs are merely speed limit postings, slowing the speed at which society moves but offering no direction for it to go in. Because the latter is purely practical, it has no metaphysical underpinnings. As such, it will be outside the scope of this inquiry. My musings today will be limited solely to principled, ideological conservatism.

In using ‘conservatism’ to describe this worldview, the word is at best an accident of history, but at worst a misleading misnomer. Insofar as such conservatives seek to conserve something, it is only because there were situations and events in our past which conformed with the conservative ideal for all peoples at all times and in all places. As such, conservatism is not about the past per se, but about eternal and timeless truths.

This then is the theological premise underlying conservatism: God is the providential Author to human history. He does not intend for us to stop at a particular passage and never turn the page or continue on with the book. Thus, contra William f. Buckley Jr., a conservative does not stand ‘athwart history, yelling Stop’; he stands within His Story but points to things eternal. Those things eternal, in addition to the Author of History Himself, comprise the metaphysical underpinning of conservatism. They are not unrelated, but logically follow from one another.

Firstly, there exists a Natural Moral Law. Right and wrong are not culturally relative concepts, but exist independently of human minds. Just as the laws of physics, they are discovered, not invented. Though not all cultures have fully discovered the Moral Law, just as not everyone has discovered the physical laws, the Moral Law affects such peoples no less than gravity. As Aragorn said, “Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.’”

Secondly, all men are created equal. Contra Jefferson, this truth is not self-evident, but the equality of all men logically follows from the existence of the Natural Law, to which all men at all times and in all places are equally subject, irrespective of their different circumstances or capabilities. No man is above the Natural Law, creating an equal standing before it between the most powerful prince and the poorest pauper.

Thirdly, man’s political freedoms logically follow from his metaphysical Free Will, the existence of which makes adherence to the Natural Law possible, but not inevitable. Even if Moral Realism is accepted, if we ourselves do not have Free Will, we cannot be moral creatures, for good or ill. Indeed, any earnest participation in any political endeavor implicitly assumes the existence of a Free Will which is neither determined nor random. If our volition is not metaphysically free, but merely the result of external forces, such as our nature or nurture, or ultimately the physical processes governing our biology, neurology, and psychology, then we are not free to reason our way to or from any genuine beliefs, whether conservatism or its competing ideologies. It is in this sense that Man is endowed by his Creator with an inalienable Right to liberty.

Fourthly, mankind has historically and continues presently to use its Free Will to violate the Moral Law. Religious parlance would label this violation of the Natural Law as sin, and our innate propensity to violate the Moral Law as our Fallen nature.

Fifthly, this propensity to violate the Moral Law necessitates the establishment of governments in order to enact justice and order. Per Moses: “Honor thy father and thy mother [and all others in authority], that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.” Per Paul: “Authorities do not bear the sword in vain. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Sixthly, from Man’s Right to liberty logically follows limited government. Because Man’s Rights and freedoms preexist government and do not derive from it, it is not necessary for a government to establish or grant those Rights, only to safeguard and secure them. It is not the case that any powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the State. Governments are invested with their limited power and authority by naturally free men, not the opposite.

Seventhly, the sinfulness which necessitates government also makes us poor wielders of political power, necessitating clear limitations on that power, kept limited in practice and not just theory through divided branches and checks and balances. Per Madison in Federalist 51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

Finally, the Right to property specifically derives from men’s inequality with respect to all factors apart from their equality under the Moral Law. From men’s different talents, by which they create value and acquire property, derives their right to possess an unequal portion of property. This is confirmed by Moses: “Thou shall not steal.” It is affirmed by Christ in His parable of the Talents, in which individuals are invested with different amounts of Talents and acquire unequal yields.

These then are the often unstated premises on which almost all conservative lawmaking and policy is built: