Freedom Conservatives and National Conservatives are fighting important battles.
We don't need to decide which ones are more important.
My friend John Fonte begins this excellent essay by asking:
Is the greatest threat to American conservatism today a Walter Mondale-style big-government liberalism? Or is it a woke revolutionary progressivism that seeks to utterly transform the American way of life—our politics, culture, economy, law, education, morality, manners, and mores?
Framed this way, the question answers itself. For any conservative, a movement that seeks utterly to transform all aspects of our way of life is a greater threat than one that seeks to transform only some aspects.
My writing can be viewed as affirming that woke progressivism is the main threat to American conservatism and, indeed, to America. I devote far more time and effort to attacking aspects of woke progressivism than to attacking traditional big government liberalism.
On the other hand, the traditional threat is persistent and, time has shown, appealing to a large swath of America. Woke progressivism, though it has marched through our institutions, hasn’t gained much of a foothold with Americans and may never gain one. It’s more than a fad, but perhaps less than a wave. Therefore, one can argue that it poses less of a threat than that posed by big-government liberalism.
I wonder, though, whether we have to decide which of the two movements — traditional liberalism or woke progressivism — is the greater threat. Why can’t we simply agree that both are threatening and need to be opposed strenuously?
The answer might be that there are issues as to which those devoted to fighting traditional liberalism — such as the Freedom Conservatives (FreeCons) — disagree fundamentally with those dedicated to fighting wokeism — such as the National Conservatives (NatCons). John Fonte identifies two of them: immigration and civil rights.
The FreeCons embrace legal immigration as a driver of American prosperity and achievement. NatCons say they favor “much more restrictive policies until [we] summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies.”
The debate is real and important. But it can’t be resolved by simply determining whether traditional liberalism is a greater threat to America than woke progressivism.
Does immigration by well-educated scientists add to the threat posed by woke progressivism? Probably not.
It’s not even clear to me that legal immigration by unskilled workers from Central America and their families will make America more woke. If anything, such immigration poses a greater threat of bolstering traditional big government liberalism. Unskilled immigrants aren’t likely to believe there are more than two genders. They might well want the government to act on their economic behalf.
The NatCons say that “Western nations have benefited from both liberal and restrictive immigration policies at various times.” I agree. Thus, setting immigration policy requires a comprehensive analysis of the current times, including a weighing of the economic advantages and disadvantages of liberal vs. restrictive policies.
The immigration debate can’t satisfactorily be resolved by intoning that immigration has been a driver of American prosperity and achievement. But neither should it be resolved by declaring tight restriction the default position until we establish balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies. We may never establish policies that meet this standard in the estimation of the NatCons. Are we to deprive America of the benefits of legal immigration forever?
On Civil Rights, the FreeCon statement of principles declares:
Prior to 1964, slavery and segregation were enforced by state governments and, in many cases, by the federal government. Many who descend from victims of this system now face economic and personal hurdles that are the direct result of this legacy. We commit to expanding opportunity for those who face challenges due to past government restrictions on individual and economic freedom. We adamantly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms, either against or for any person or group of people.
John objects that a commitment to “expanding opportunity for those who face challenges due to past government restrictions on. . . freedom” is inconsistent with “oppos[ing] racial discrimination in all its forms, either against or for any person or group of people.”
Not necessarily. The most important way to expand opportunity for those who (in the view of the FreeCons) are held back due to the effects of past discrimination is to fix (as best we can) the way members of this cohort are educated. This can best be achieved by breaking the monopoly of public schools. Accomplishing this is not only consistent with opposing racial discrimination, it is consistent with combatting woke progressivism.
Opportunity zones may be another way to expand opportunity without discriminating on the basis of race. As I understand the concept, the tool is designed to benefit economically distressed areas without regard to the race of their inhabitants — although a disproportionate number of these areas will be predominantly black.
I grant, though, that the FreeCons need to be more specific about the ways in which they propose to expand opportunity for blacks without discriminating against other groups. They might also want to provide evidence to support their claim that “slavery and segregation” are holding blacks back to a significant decree all these years later.
John’s discussion of civil rights deals not with the FreeCon statement of principle, but with the views of Avik Roy, a leader of the FreeCon movement. Roy seems obsessed with atoning for conservative opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such an obsession is a recipe for major mischief, in my view. However, if taken seriously, the FreeCon statement of opposition to racial discrimination against or for any group of people constitutes a rejection of such mischief.
So does the traditional conservative focus on maximizing freedom and restraining government. John views civil rights-era legislation and related court decisions as “a mixed blessing.” It’s worth noting that conservative opposition to that legislation (the opposition for which Roy wants to atone) was based on traditional conservative anti- intrusive government principles.
One might suspect that the FreeCons and the NatCons would diverge on the matter of restraining woke corporations. Fortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case, at least in principle. In fact, Avik Roy commends the NatCons for “push[ing] the conservative establishment to rethink its unreciprocated loyalty to Big Business.”
My view, then, is that we don’t need to answer the question of whether it’s big-government liberalism or woke progressivism that poses the greatest threat to American conservatism and America. Both are threatening and both need to be opposed. To the extent that opposing the one leads to advocating policies at odds with opposing the other, the conflict is best resolved by a nuanced analysis of the policies being advocated, and the degree to which they promote or infringe on the goals of the two sides.
In making this case, I don’t mean to minimize the conflict between FreeCons and NatCons or to call for some sort of fusion. As is clear from reading the Fonte and Roy essays, there are differences between the two factions that can’t be papered over and some of them are quite important.
But so are the fights both factions are waging against what’s essentially a common enemy— aggressive leftism.