The First Conservatives: the Constitutional Challenge to Progressivism

No. 39 The First Conservatives: The Constitutional Challenge to Progressivism Johnathan O’Neill Abstract: Although it is readily apparent that conservatism is united in its principled hostility to modern Progressive Liberalism, it is often more difficult to pin down just what the movement stands for. Johnathan O’Neill suggests that a focus on defending and preserving the Constitution could unite the otherwise frac- tious conservative movement. In this spirit, he examines four early conservative responses to Progressivism, all of which continue to have supporters today: Burkean traditionalism, Southern Agrarianism, libertarianism, and constitutional conservatism. While the first three had a strained, ambiguous, or hostile relationship to the constitutional order that limited their ability to respond to Progressivism, the latter offered informed and forthright resistance to Progressivism based on an affirmation of American constitutionalism. These conservatives met Progressivism with principled arguments rooted in the constitutional tradition, and they give us a historical example that can offer guidance to today’s conservatives. lectoral defeats and long-standing differences of American exceptionalism, are sometimes rejected by Eprinciple have separated the strands of conser- libertarians and traditionalists. vatism held together for so long by the leadership Yet all of these enduring schools of contemporary of William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan. Libertar- conservatism treat the Constitution as a good and gen- ians, who value individual liberty above all, have erally politically sound document, even if they might gained adherents due to dissatisfaction with the question aspects of it or disagree among themselves steadily increasing power of modern government. on other matters. This truth suggests that one way Traditionalist conservatism, often informed by reli- toward another era of practical accord among the dif- gion, has invigorated opposition to abortion and ferent types of conservatism is a focus on defending remains vibrant, but its emphasis on virtue and mor- and preserving the Constitution.1 Whatever the ulti- al restraint distances it from the moral relativist ori- mate principles and immediate aims of the various entation typical of libertarianism. The neoconserva- types of conservatism, they have more to gain from tive understanding of human nature and dedication focusing the political conversation on the Constitution to an activist foreign policy, both built on a version of than do their adversaries, contemporary liberals or Published by 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 (202) 546-4400 • heritage.org The Heritage Foundation’s First Principles Series explores the fundamental ideas of conservatism and the American political tradition. For more information call 1-800-544-4843 or visit heritage.org/bookstore. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress. 2 No. 39 progressives, who more likely would prefer to aban- cans in what was required to be in harmony with it, don it. so they zealously attacked or redefined aspects of con- How might politics look if conservatism oriented stitutionalism that they regarded as outmoded or sim- itself around preservation of the Constitution? We can ply false. gain historical perspective on this question by consid- Accordingly, for Progressives, the local self-gov- ering how conservatives responded when Progressiv- ernment protected by federalism was an obstacle to ism challenged the established constitutional order in be overcome, as was the Supreme Court’s resistance the early 20th century.1 to many of their desired regulations. The Presi- Progressivism was an intellectual and political dent would become the representative of a properly reform movement that aimed to alter the American con- instructed public opinion and then would oversee stitutional system.2 At the deepest level, as expressed the bureaucracy that would effect the will of the especially in the thought of Woodrow Wilson and masses. Herbert Croly, Progressives aimed to refound America based on the managerial–administrative political phi- At the deepest level, as expressed especially in losophy of the European state. Consequently, Progres- the thought of Woodrow Wilson and Herbert sives typically rejected the foundational American Croly, Progressives aimed to refound America principles of natural rights and limited government for their own understanding of “progress,” defined as based on the managerial–administrative governmental experts’ management of social change political philosophy of the European state. toward an ever more just and essentially socialist future. As this description suggests, in many respects, Pro- Progressives called for more activist regulatory gressives created the world we now inhabit, and Pro- power in the federal government via administrative gressivism’s modern Liberal incarnation remains very bureaucracies and more direct democratic control of much with us. Those who would resist the further political decision making to wrest it from the suppos- elaboration of the Progressive vision would do well to edly corrupt hands of big business and the party sys- study the arguments and limitations of those who first tem. Progressives were confident that they knew the opposed it. direction of history and could tutor and direct Ameri- It is in this spirit that we will examine several noted conservatives who criticized Progressivism and who 1 For recent discussions of this idea, see Peter Berkowitz, yet had a strained, ambiguous, or hostile relationship “Constitutional Conservatism: A Way Forward for a Troubled to the constitutional order. This discussion will ana- Political Coalition,” Policy Review, Vol. 153 (February– lyze the period’s most noted exemplars of Burkean tra- March 2009); “The Mount Vernon Statement: Constitutional ditionalist conservatism, Southern Agrarianism, and Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century,” at http://www.mountvernonstatement.org; and “What Happened to libertarianism, all of which continue to have support- the Constitution?” Special Issue, National Review, May 17, 2010. ers among today’s conservatives. These groups’ prin- 2 The academic literature on Progressivism is immense. More ciples, though considered and sometimes profound, accessible recent critiques are Thomas West and William limited their commitment to American constitutional- Schambra, “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics,” Heritage Foundation First Principles ism and thereby prevented a stronger and more coher- Report No. 12, July 18, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/ ent conservative response to Progressivism. Their Research/Reports/2007/07/The-Progressive-Movement-and-the- insufficient attachment to the Constitution, at the time Transformation-of-American-Politics, and “The Four Hoursemen when it most needed them, should serve as a warning of Progressivism: The Men Who Created Our World,” National Review, December 31, 2009. to today’s conservatives. No. 39 3 We will then examine a now-neglected group republican government. Moreover, Babbitt valorized of conservatives who also rejected Progressivism Washington and Lincoln as paragons of principled but did so precisely by rededicating themselves to leadership who knew that ethical restraint was needed American constitutionalism. This group articulated if democracy was to endure. the classic constitutionalist arguments for federalism, In the teeth of Progressivism, then, Babbitt’s deep for an independent judiciary dedicated to the rule of learning generated a kind of constitutional conser- law but not somehow superior to the Constitution, vatism, yet his Burkean orientation ultimately dis- and for a presidency checked by and moored to other tanced him from America’s foundational principles. institutions of government rather than to mere public Babbitt held that on one side of man’s dual nature opinion. stood insatiable appetite and passion; on the other, moral self-restraint and willed moderation that con- CONSERVATIVES ALIENATED FROM stituted the “inner check” or “veto power” on the for- AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM mer. He deployed this dualism, which he knew had a long history in Western thought, as a powerful cri- Humanism and the Limits of Burkean Conservatism tique of democratic culture, materialism, and politics. In the 1920s, Irving Babbitt (1865–1933), a professor Drawing somewhat on Aristotle and more on Burke, at Harvard University, began a movement of conserva- Babbitt argued that only an aristocracy could orient tive cultural criticism known as Humanism. Led by society toward ethical standards and self-restraint, Babbitt’s influential writing and his popularity as a thereby moderating the selfishness, vulgarity, and university instructor, Humanism rejected the wooly- redistributionist meddling loosed by modern mass headed utopianism and crude self-indulgence it saw democracy. as degrading modern culture, especially literature. Humanism steadily gained adherents among con- Irving Babbitt cautioned against increased servatives, and Babbitt remains an abiding referent for presidential power and warned that the traditionalists who cast a wary eye on American cul- Progressives’ zeal for direct democracy ture. His deepest intellectual loyalty was to Edmund Burke, whose thought informed Babbitt’s brief but was profoundly dangerous to republican pointed attack

Load more