At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


The Conservative’s Stance on War

posted by Jack Kerwick

As Congress and the President debate over whether America should “intervene” in—i.e. launch war against—Syria, self-declared conservatives would be well served to revisit their political tradition’s stance on war generally.

Neoconservatism, the political orientation underwriting the anything-but- humble foreign policy of President George W. Bush, is most definitely not conservatism—a truth acknowledged unapologetically by none other than Irving Kristol, the “Godfather” of neoconservatism and the person responsible for having given it its name.  Classical or traditional conservatism, in stark contrast, is actually quite dovish, even if it is in no ways compatible with pacifism.

Conservatives didn’t need Sherman to inform them of war’s hellish nature, its death and destruction. That all war entails the killing of human beings, and not infrequently the killing of innocent human beings, as well as the destruction of other goods that invest human life with value, does not preclude the possibility of just wars.  It does, however, mean that decent people can wage war if and only if all other options have been thoroughly exhausted.

This is the first, and most obvious, reason that conservatives have been slow to enter war.

Secondly, human reason has none of the omniscience that we all too frequently attribute to it. The best laid plans of men often run aground on the unforeseen obstacles that life throws up.  Our intentions have unintended consequences.  Whatever our goals, however noble they may be, the pursuit of those goals can easily give rise to evils even greater than those that we’re trying to uproot.

In other words, that, say, Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad are bad people who the human race is better off without is an insufficient basis upon which to launch war.

The good combat evil, but they will prevail only if they do so wisely or prudently.  This, conservatives have always known.

Thirdly, the 20th century conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott noted that since its emergence close to five centuries ago, that peculiar association that we call “the state” has been interpreted in two fundamentally different ways.   Some have regarded it as a “civil association.”  Others have ascribed to it the character of an “enterprise association.”

The members of a civil association are joined together by, not a common purpose or shared vision of the good, but a shared “interest” in the preservation of the laws that compose their association.  Laws, as opposed to orders, commands, or policies, do not tell citizens what to do.  Rather, they tell citizens how they must avoid acting regardless of what they choose to do.

For example, the law doesn’t tell us that we must or mustn’t have sex.  What it tells us is that if we choose to have sex, then we are forbidden from doing so coercively.  The law forbids rape. Similarly, the law doesn’t instruct us to kill or refrain from killing.  It does, though, inform us that if we kill, we cannot do so murderously.

In a civil association, there is liberty, for citizens are engaged in the pursuit of their self-chosen ends—not some grand plan prescribed to them by their government.

Conservatives have traditionally favored the reading of the state as a civil association.

In an enterprise association, individuality is subordinated to the common purpose of the association, a purpose in the pursuit of which the government takes the lead.  As Oakeshott explains, each person is cast into the role of a servant to the goal or goals for the sake of which the association is held to exist.  “Redistributive justice,” “social justice,” “economic equality,” and the like are the standard goals or purposes that we hear most about today.

It is precisely because conservatives have staunchly rejected this understanding of a state that they’ve been extremely reluctant to embark upon war, for never is civil association more in peril than when a state is at war.  It is during war that everyone is expected to “sacrifice”—i.e. part with their liberty, their time, labor, wealth, and even their very lives—for the sake of “the common good” of “victory.”  That collectivists home and abroad are well aware of this explains why they are forever seeking to assimilate their pet domestic policies to the language and imagery of war: the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, etc.

Self-avowed conservatives must take all of this to head and heart as they contemplate interjecting their country into but another Middle Eastern country.

 

 

 

 



  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Truth

    The problem is that neocons are not “conservative” in principle or anything else. They throw out principle if it will advance their desire for more war in the Middle East in order to strengthen Israel. Their loyalty is clearly to that state, not to the USA.

    While conservatives usually are in accord with these traitors, and are readily disposed to promote war, this time they have voiced objection to expanding Obama’s war plans. Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones have both said this war is NOT in America’s interests. In fact both have said to watch for more “false flags” such as possible terrorist attacks which are staged by the CIA or by Israelis which will be used in order to “justify” more war.

    We have already seen one such sign:

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13920616001062

    Rockets shot by Israel and intercepted by the USA. Here is Israel caught red handed but the controlled news media ignores it.

    Watch for more such incidents.

    If you are a principled conservative and a true patriot, then join with progressives and demand that Congress vote NO for Obama’s request for more war.

Previous Posts

Against the "Militarization" of the Police II
There’s a notion, popular among self-avowed “libertarians,” that among the largest threats facing our nation is that of “the militarization” of the police.  This idea has been expressed quite a bit as of late, particularly in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Fergu

posted 10:43:11am Aug. 29, 2014 | read full post »

Libertarianism and "The Militarization" of the Police
A line that has become all too common in some libertarian circles is that the key problem, or even a problem, in Ferguson, Missouri is a problem facing the rest of the nation. This problem is what these libertarians have taken to calling “the militarization” of the police. The charge that

posted 2:20:30pm Aug. 24, 2014 | read full post »

"Libertarians" and "Racism"
In the wake of the shooting death of a young black man by a white Ferguson, Missouri police officer, it is to no one’s surprise that the usual suspects on the left are screaming “racism” from the rooftops. Infinitely more disturbing for the lover of liberty is that ever growing legions of

posted 9:25:48am Aug. 24, 2014 | read full post »

A Tale of Two Fatal Police Shootings
As if the happenings in Ferguson, Missouri aren’t bad enough, now we have the situation in Salt Lake City, Utah with which to contend. As the whole country knows, for the last week or so, large groups of blacks have taken to the streets of Ferguson in order to express their outrage over the sho

posted 8:34:16pm Aug. 21, 2014 | read full post »

Food for Thought on Ferguson
To the proliferation of articles on the shooting death of black Missourian Michael Brown via white police officer, Darren Wilson, I register the following considerations. Firstly, at this time when black underclass thugs are ruining the quality of life in but another once- decent town while their

posted 5:31:07pm Aug. 20, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.