A Burkean conservatism can't be true to itself aligned permanently with political parties...On what basis can loyalty to an organization, lacking any abiding principles and seeking nothing more than electoral victory, be justified?

Conservatism: A Look Ahead

by George W. Carey

Winston Elliott inquired whether I would like to update an article I wrote for Modern Age in 2005, “The Future of Conservatism”. I have gladly accepted his invitation since it allows me to emphasize and expand upon certain of its central points that I believe deserve our close attention, as well as to express my views on an issue that seems to be of some interest to TIC readers, namely, the relationship between traditional conservatives and our major political parties.

Turning to the article, I believe that my account of how the evolution of our party system and presidential supremacy are intertwined is essentially sound. Clearly, I find this development very dangerous. I should have pointed out that in this process presidential powers will always rachet up; that is, an incoming president will assume whatever advances in presidential power were made by his predecessor. In turn, an incumbent will strive to accrue new powers that can be passed on. We have seen this process take place in the first Obama administration. [See on this point Gene Healy’s recent e-book, False Idol: Barack Obama and the Continuing Cult of the Presidency. See also my extensive TIC review of Healy’s first work, The Cult of the Presidency, for an overview of the growth and powers of the modern presidency.]

The underlying concern in my essay related to the dominance of the presidency in our system today. Several developments highlighted my concern, but key among them was the fact that Bush II was able in a very short period of time to utterly transform the Republican Party. Circa 2000, traditional conservatives were pretty much in step with the party on two crucial issues, fiscal responsibility and a realistic foreign policy that eschewed Wilsonianism, that is, the notion that America bore a special responsibility to make the world “safe for democracy.” But on these two very fundamental issues, the party did an about face. Not only this, but its thinking on these issues came to closely resemble that of some mainstream Democrats. Understandably I was puzzled: How or why did it come to pass in such short order? What is more, and something I still don’t quite fathom, Bush II and his administration after abandoning these basic policies came to be widely regarded by the chattering class as “conservative,” some (as I point out) even regarding it as the “most conservative” administration in our history. From my point of view as a traditional (or paleo) conservative everything was turned inside out without so much as a “by your leave.”

But, to pick up where I left off in the article, I realized that Bush II’s capacity to bring about such a radical and abrupt change was only a manifestation of the enormous power that has accrued to the presidency. There are, it seems to me, at least two reasons – reasons, for that matter, that would apply to any president of either party who chose to follow the same course – for Bush II’s success. The first I mention in the article, but the point can be made more forcefully and clearly by bringing John C. Calhoun’s thought into play. In his Disquisition, he points out that the mere existence of government will divide society into two parts, a majority and minority. Why so? Individuals will seek to control government because it dispenses “honors” and “emoluments” which are, he goes on to remark, far from insubstantial. To fulfill its primary responsibilities, he observes, “large establishments are necessary”: On the military side, “fortifications, fleets, armories, arsenals, magazines, arms of all descriptions, with well-trained forces”; on the civil, “a host of employees, agents, and officers – of whom many must be vested with high and responsible trusts, and occupy exalted stations, accompanied with much influence and patronage.” “The whole united,” he believes, “must necessarily place under the control of government an amount of honors and emoluments, sufficient to excite profoundly the ambition of the aspiring and the cupidity of the avaricious.” Consequently, coalitions will form to vie for control of government, eventually coalescing into a majority and minority, each seeking its piece of the pie.

...................

Read more here: www.theimaginativeconservative.org