Liberal Praise for Conservative Values

Rev. Paul Beckel

First Universalist Unitarian Church ~ www.uuwausau.org

November 7, 2004

 

 

 

Do not take offense, even when it is offered.

from the Zen tradition

 

My heart is moved by all I cannot save: so much has been destroyed

I have to cast my lot with those who,

age after age, perversely, and with no extraordinary power,

reconstitute the world.

Adrienne Rich

 

 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning. Today I will be speaking about conservative values. Obviously it will be a short sermon.

 

Many of us are hurting today. Some may feel like lashing out. Others may be depressed, cynical, discouraged.  And others, of course, are satisfied, joyful, or ecstatic.  One danger of election time is that it becomes so easy to create labels of Winners and Losers. Us and Them. It becomes too easy to see the world in terms of Liberal and Conservative... as if these were opposites. As if the values affirmed by liberals and conservatives were completely antagonistic. We pray today that this will never be so.

 

CHILDREN’S FOCUS                     Jenna and the Troublemaker, by Hiawyn Oram

Summary: Jenna is so distressed about her troubles that The Troublemaker takes pity on her and allows her to turn them in...and allows her to choose from all of the bags of troubles that he has strewn about the world. After looking at some pretty ghastly stuff, she concludes that one particular bag of troubles seems manageable—her own.

 

MESSAGE

In 1787, arguing in favor of a federal constitution, James Madison suggested that the diversity of interests in a large nation would ensure that one group could not oppress others—at least not over an extended period of time. Our differences, he argued, would ensure that at some time everyone would be in the minority...and therefore everyone would insist on protection from the majority. Individual rights would be guaranteed through a self-correcting governmental structure.

 

Lucky for us, our religious diversity and our differences of political interest continue. We don’t always like it that our siblings, parents, co-workers, or neighbors fall for the idiotic propaganda of other parties, but our differences remind us how important it is to maintain our freedom.

 

The same could be true within houses of worship. In our Unitarian Universalist church, for example, if we could create a safe place to hold and to express conservative political views, we would be a much richer congregation. I mean richer philosophically.

In 1784 Patrick Henry—supported by those paragons of liberty George Washington and John Marshall—proposed that Virginians be taxed to support “the teachers of the Christian religion.” James Madison argued against this, saying that religion cannot be coerced; religion can only be directed by reason and conscience. With the strong support of the Baptists, Henry’s bill was defeated, and instead Thomas Jefferson’s bill for religious liberty was passed. If you’re having trouble keeping score on that one, you’re in good company. I’ll repeat: Washington, Marshall, and Give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death-Henry favored taxpayer support of religion. The Baptists and Jefferson objected, and won.

Today Jefferson—who called himself a unitarian before there was a unitarian denomination—is claimed by both liberals and conservatives. Conservatives love his refrain: “That government is best which governs least.” Even Timothy McVeigh quoted Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots.” And Barry Goldwater said nearly the same thing: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Goldwater, of course, was the 1960s ultraconservative presidential candidate who—by the time he died in the 1990s—was being called a flaming moderate.

 

It’s hard to know whether to label these figures liberal, or conservative, or something else. Over time politicians have been on the side of local authority or federal authority; they have emphasized individual rights or emphasized the collective good; they have upheld the rule of law or proclaimed the spirit of the law. Depending on the issue, they speak idealistically of principles, or they speak pragmatically about results. One side argues fiscal accountability while the other wishes to take risks for the sake of future generations. One side is cautious about extending ourselves into world affairs while the other trumpets our responsibility to the oppressed in others lands. Who is liberal? Which approach is conservative? It depends.

While John Marshall still sat as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, making the earliest interpretations of this radical federal Constitution, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay called “The Conservative.” He wrote that conservative and reform impulses have and do and will exist in every age—impulses toward what is real, and impulses toward what might be. These are inevitable forces, he wrote, each a good half, but an impossible whole. “Each exposes the abuses of the other, but in a true society, in a true man, they must combine.”

Between the Unitarians and Universalists, colonial Unitarians were seen as the more conservative. But by the 20th century, the Universalists were seen as more conservative. Who is what depends upon whether you’re comparing the Unitarians’ and Universalists’ class and educational status, their theology, their emphasis upon emotion vs. reason, their forms of denominational governance, or their stands on national political issues. And it depends which decade you’re talking about.

In Boston, the early unitarians were distinctly conservative, even reactionary. Against the emotional excesses of the First Great Awakening in the 1740s, the unitarians[1] emphasized reason. Charles Chauncy described the revivalists of his day as so carried away by their religious enthusiasm that “they are above the force of argument” and beyond the possibility of correction ...since they believe that truth has come to them from the Spirit. In contrast, Chauncy described real religion as “a sober, calm, reasonable thing” that ought to be judged by its moral results and the character of its adherents.

 

Unitarian churches represented the prosperous merchant class which had emerged out of Puritan origins. In Massachusetts, they were taxpayer-supported establishment churches. In 1833 this Boston establishment convicted and jailed Abner Kneeland for blasphemy. Kneeland was an ex-Universalist preacher who had gone off the deep end and published an article advocating free-thinking.

 

Fortunately the Universalists (along with the Quakers, Baptists, and independent revivalists who favored a separation of church and state) rallied against the Unitarians. State supported religion was finally abolished in Massachusetts in 1835.

Today we unapologetically identify our Unitarian Universalist religious tradition as “liberal.” Still, we might see in our symbol of the flaming chalice a bit of our amalgamated history: the chalice and the flame a yin yang of conservative and liberal. The real, the solid, the continuity of our heritage as the chalice...upon which the ethereal flame dances, destroys, and creates new light.

But liberal religion is not the same as liberal politics. I spoke about the character of liberal religion at length in a sermon[2] last spring that you can read on the website. http://www.uuwausau.org/Liberal%20Religions.htm

 

Whether you think of the principles of liberal religions in general, or the principles of Unitarian Universalism in particular, you’ll find a great deal of room for interpretation and application to social, economic, and international affairs. In this breadth, you’ll find overlap between liberal religious values and conservative political values.

 

What do I mean by conservative political values? There are countless descriptions. One of the most compelling is that of George Lakoff, whose book Moral Politics has become an essential guide for liberals trying to understand what happened this week, and what to do next. [Most of the next section is adapted from Lakoff.]

 

Lakoff suggests that we can understand the difference between liberals and conservatives through their respective metaphors for the family. The central metaphor of family through which conservatives derive their values is the strict father model.  The central metaphor through which liberals derive their values is the nurturant parent model.  These models explain the cluster of values and related social policies affirmed by the people and the parties that we call “conservative” and “liberal” today.

 

The conservative world view is that the world is a dangerous place, in which the family must depend upon an authority who will protect them, set policy, and teach the children self-discipline, so that they will learn to take care of themselves.

 

This model describes—and seeks to maintain—a competitive environment. Without competition, there would be no source of reward for self-discipline and no motivation to become the right kind of person. Without competition there would be no plans, no commitments, no follow through. Competition ensures that we maintain our authority over ourselves. Constraints on competition are therefore immoral. 

 

Equal distribution of the world’s plenty would not lead to good results for it would lead to loss of self-discipline. A good world is unequal, a meritocracy, promoting thrift, effort, efficiency, and even innovation.

 

A good world is hierarchical. For it is appropriate that some have authority over others. But authority is a two-way street. Authority implies responsibility. Contemporary American conservatism is akin to pre-christian Confucianism in China—where there were very clear guidelines regarding who was to defer to whom. But anyone to whom you owed deference and obedience, owed you in return: to oversee your behavior, and to take care of you.

 

Arising out of this model are a number of virtues, each of which has complex implications.

 

The first virtue is Moral Strength. Moral strength is essential because evil is a real force which must be fought. Fortunately, through hardship, we can build our moral strength. Related virtues are courage—to stand up to external evil, and self control—to stand up to internal evils. We are not born with moral strength. So we need a parent or government to guide and discipline us. But some governmental programs weaken us rather than strengthen us: welfare, contraception, providing clean needles to drug users—these make society weak.

 

Another implication of the value of moral strength is that one should show no respect for the adversary. Evil must be attacked ruthlessly. Winning is the only option. The strict father figure—whether male or female, in a home or a nation—the strict father figure must have moral strength to support, protect, and guide his family.

 

Another virtue within the strict father family model is Moral Authority. Moral authority is essential because children—or others subject to authority—do not know what is in their own best interest. The father figure not only knows best, he can be relied upon to do what is in the best interests of all. Enforcing the rules is not the privilege of the father, but a responsibility that must not be shirked. The larger society, in turn, must leave the father alone to do what he sees fit.

 

But don’t imagine that conservatives therefore respect all authority figures. No. Defiance of Illegitimate Authority is an important conservative virtue. A legitimate authority knows what’s in his subjects’ best interest and acts in his subjects’ best interests. But the father who attempts to rule us after we’ve become adults, or the government which is far removed from local interests must be defied.

 

Every social model has its own image of how the scales of justice should be balanced.  Within the strict father model, Retribution is the way. Retribution should be as harsh as possible in order to provide an incentive to good behavior and a deterrent to crime.

 

This model posits a hierarchical Moral Order, or chain of command, from God down to humans (over animals) to adults (over children)... to men (over women). This is a natural order, proven by existing power structures, and therefore necessary to preserve.  But again, power-over does not mean power to exploit. It means a responsibility to support and to regulate the behavior of those on the lower strata.

 

Another moral virtue is the maintenance of fences, that is, Moral Boundaries. Tradition has laid out a path for us to follow. Deviating from the path, or creating your own path, is not only bad for you, it threatens the fabric of society. Beating a new path might cause others to go astray. Or it might lead others to question the tradition, the father’s authority... it would call the whole moral order into doubt.

 

The strict father model honors Rights. For example property rights. We will be able to discuss forever the implications, such as whether clean air inside a restaurant is the property of the restaurant owner, or the common property of the restaurant patrons and employees.

 

The strict father model emphasizes character. For conservatives, character means self-discipline, courage, temperance, sobriety, chastity, industry, and perseverance. (While liberals honor all of the above, their emphasis is upon care, compassion, social responsibility, open mindedness, inquisitiveness, and flexibility.) Conservatives believe that character is formed young and then doesn’t change. That’s why it’s necessary to remove a child from deviant parents. That’s why “3-strikes-you’re-out” laws make sense.

 

Another important conservative value is Integrity. Integrity is acting according to your nature. In nature mixed substances don’t hold up under pressure...they don’t behave in predictable ways, they can’t be trusted. Thus uniformity is a high value, and terms like “degenerate,” “decay,” “erosion of standards,” and “chipping away at moral foundations” are well-understood.

 

The value of integrity implies that there can be no moral progress. For moral standards do not change over time, or according to the situation, or your culture. Therefore you’ll find in conservative books today the implication that conservatives were proponents of equal rights for blacks and women all along.

 

When we understand the importance of integrity, and purity, we can understand the conservative insistence that only same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.  Experience shows that men and women cannot live peaceably in the same household.

 

Another conservative virtue is Moral Self-interest. By pursuing our individual interest we maximize the well-being of all people. Conservatives are criticized unfairly for holding self-interest as their top priority. It is not. One may not pursue self interest when this conflicts with the interests of those for whom you are responsible. And there is a long history in the U.S. of the powerful exercising self-restraint for the public good (like businesses sponsoring libraries, little leagues, and Miss America contestants).

 

And conservatives value Nurturance. Conservative nurturance is tough love, often taught through punishment. In the ideal family or society, punishment is rarely needed. Where children obey, there is room for abundant nurture. Compassion too is a virtue...but is must not decay into Enabling.

 

Finally, the virtue of Self Defense. It is essential to protect the moral system from attack by outside influences such as the arts, academics, feminists, or homosexuals.

 

***

Of course this is a stereotype, a standard model of conservatism. None of us is a coherent example of a type. We are all mixed.  Maybe we’re proud to be mixed; maybe we’re annoyed to find that our attitudes mingle with those on “the other side.” But this mixture provides a solution to civil life. It’s clear that—even within our political groups—we will never agree upon a theory to explain who we are or where we should go. But as Madison and the framers of the constitution showed, we can effectively, peaceably compromise on the details.

 

***

What was the significance of today’s children’s focus? Jenna might be seen as a good conservative, because she decides to take responsibility for her own problems.  On the other hand, the story could be seen as anti-conservative, in that The Troublemaker distributes troubles randomly.  Whether conservatives view The Troublemaker as an aspect of God or the Devil, they generally don’t believe that troubles come at random. Troubles are a consequence of our actions...or at least they are part of a divine plan.  I’m not going to argue theology today, but I will say that it isn’t consistent with conservative values to toss troubles all about, and heap garbage upon the world for our own personal gain.

 

***

There is common ground between conservatism and liberalism. I swallowed hard this week and picked up William Bennett’s Book of Virtues. Here’s what I found: stories of Greek gods and goddesses, Taoist poetry, feminist and abolitionist heroes.

 

Bennett shares a wonderful Buddhist story: A king climbs the winding path to heaven, which is rigorous and terribly sorrowful. His wife and four brothers all die along the way. When he finally reaches heaven he is alone except for a small dog who has joined him along the way. Indra, the God of 1000 Eyes, greets the King and welcomes him to paradise, but tells him the dog has to stay behind.  The King can hardly bear the thought. He’s lost so much already along the way. But God assures him that he has lost nothing, that his wife and brothers have already arrived and are eagerly awaiting him...but the dog can’t come in.  The King hesitates, then turns away, unwilling to forsake the devoted dog. And when he reaches down to touch the dog, it turns into Dharma, the God of Righteousness and Justice.

 

Indra then acknowledges that this was a test. Indra praises the King for being willing to turn against the gods themselves out of compassion for the humble. This story was in the chapter on Loyalty. I’ve always been skeptical of “loyalty” as a virtue. But this story makes a pretty good case.

 

Bennett also shares a letter from Thomas Jefferson which says: examine religion using your reason and don’t fear the consequences. If you conclude there is a heaven and a god...and if that motivates you, great. If you conclude there is no god, that’s fine too; you’ll find other motivations to virtue. But first lay aside all prejudices toward one conclusion or the other. Believe nothing because someone else does. “Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision.”

 

Elsewhere Bennett explicitly states: there is nothing distinctively Christian about faith.

 

***

Conservatives promote security, privacy, resilience, and self-reliance. All of these, of course are both conservative and liberal values. George Will writes: “Conservative soulcraft has as its aim the perpetuation of free government by nurturing people so they can be comfortable and competent in society.” Though Will wrote this many years ago, I’m convinced that it offers common ground upon which we can build today. 

 

Still, I have some challenges that I would put to conservatives:

 

Ask yourself this about morality: Is the purpose of morality to help us transform and grow, or is morality something best used to control other people?

 

Stop allowing your fellow conservatives to use terms like “faith” and “honor” as fuzzy lenses through which any self-serving scheme can be justified.

 

When I speak up, don’t tell me to go home, or to get out of the country if I don’t love it. This is our home, together. So don’t stand idly by while others interfere with my right to free expression.

 

Act on your values. Do not pass along a legacy of money, or connections to your children. Don’t allow them to be spoiled. If you envision worldwide democracy, lead the way with you and your children on the front lines.  And please stop providing your children with free health care. This gives them a competitive advantage over my children. Your poor kids won’t learn to compete properly if they have a head start. 

***

And if there are any liberals out there, you get a challenge as well: Act on your values.  Know yourself, and know your opponents, but don’t shift your politics left or right just to win. Figure out how to talk about the values you already treasure.  If you can find clear, simple ways to talk about your faith, this will be a great gift to the generations to come.



Don’t let your fear paralyze you. Let your hope for future generations mobilize you. Do more than vote for a better person; be a better person.

In a Peter Paul and Mary song, we hear: “I always thought in my own lifetime, I’d see an end to poverty, hatred, and war. But now I see that it’s going to take a long long time....” It is sobering to learn, again, and again, that the Messiah will not be back to save us in our lifetimes. We can feel depressed about this, or we can feel hopeful.  Over time we’re likely to feel some of each. But our ability to respond to the here and now remains.

As Abraham Lincoln spoke to us across time from the battlefield of Gettysburg: “It is for us, the living...to be here dedicated to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is...for us to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us...that this nation... shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.