Questions for the Ombudsman
I have heard the Ombudsman hold forth eloquently on the nature of true conservatism. He has made the point repeatedly to me (a political practitioner and occasional trench warrior) that real conservatism is non-ideological. Traditionally, conservatives like, say, George Washington, were foxes (who knew many things) rather than hedgehogs (who knew one big thing.) Conservatism, I gathered from his eloquent discourses, is not about grand schemes but about the application of sound prudential judgment against the problems of the day. Conservatism, in short, is about conserving rather than preserving.
First question, have I correctly summarized, Mr. Ombudsman, your well-informed view?
If I am correct, my second question relates to how this view of conservatism applies in the context of the current financial crisis. My ears are ringing from the complaints of DC-based conservative movement types about the bailout bill and Treasury interventions to address Freddie, Fannie, AIG, Bear Sterns, etc. Conservatives tell me these interventions will ultimately destroy economic freedom, and that it would be better to go through Depression 2.0 than risk that kind of loss. The hedgehog believes economic meltdown can be survived; the loss of economic liberty cannot.
The fox view, using the Ombudsman's interpretive frame, might lead to a very different set of conclusions. The abstract commitment to economic liberty might yield to prudential concerns about the impact of economic free-fall on democratic capitalism's crowning achievement, the modern financial system. It might also be concerned with the threat such a collapse would pose to social and political stability here and abroad. The fox might have an appreciation for the subtle turns of mind emanating from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury seeking to head-off panic and restore the flow of credit that, left unchecked, could strangle a $14 trillion economy.
Mr. Ombudsman, which of these views is truly conservative?
1 comment:
I'm not the Ombudsman, but as a student of Edmund Burke, let me venture a reply. Burke was not ideological, it's true. The spirit of conservativism is to preserve the wisdom from the past. But what does it mean to be a conservative in the Soviet Union of 1980? Preserve a failed system that has a fundamentally flawed anthropology? Certainly not. Burke certainly would have advocated its overthrow, just as he was in favor of the American drive for independence (and he was a Whig, not a Tory).
My own view is that conservatives can and do disagree on whether the rescue package was prudent. Heritage Foundation supported it, for instance. Many conservatives in the business world supported it. But the taxpayer groups tended to oppose it.
Prudence is rarely well-defined, and the same is true of conservatism.
Post a Comment