As part of the November 19th day-long conference co-sponsored by Hillsdale College and the National Review Institute on the topic, “Whither Conservatism?,” Director of the Allan P. Kirby Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship Dr. David Bobb delivered remarks for a panel on “The Future of Conservatism.” His speech follows below.

Conservatism, we’re told, is an “ism” that soon may be a “wasm.”

An “ism,” after all, is an ideology, or a comprehensive political project that seeks the transformation of political reality, and ultimately, the perfection of human nature. Progressivism, a powerful ideology even today, supposes that the state can solve all, or almost all, of our problems. It leaves little room for individual liberty.

Conservatism at its best is an antidote to ideology. Instead of promising the perfection of human nature, conservatism affirms the constancy of human nature. It does not suppose a political solution to every problem. Instead, conservatism at its best allows individuals, families, and communities to flourish by making ample room for liberty.

Conservatism at its best—principled conservatism—encourages Americans to live in keeping with the greatness of our founding principles.

Today conservatism faces its own ideological temptation. This temptation is to suppose that the only way to counteract Progressivism is to do whatever is necessary to keep Progressives out of political office.

Bowing to this temptation produces an ideology we might call necessitarianism. It assumes that big government—or what more accurately is called the administrative state—is necessary because it is here to stay. If it’s here to stay, the thinking goes, let’s make it our administrative state!

If Medicare can’t be contained, expand it. If big banks are failing, nationalize them. If health care will be nationalized, nationalize it more efficiently. In short, if necessity demands, do it!

If American conservatives do not stand for the Constitution, they abandon the foundational principles of our country. But in abandoning enduring constitutional principles, necessitarian conservatives allow the Constitution to be defined by the very Progressives they wish to defeat.

In short, when conservatism abandons the Constitution in favor of necessity, it offers no real alternative to Progressivism.

What then, should conservatives do? And what is constitutional conservatism?

In five quick points to follow I offer not a conservative manifesto, but an anti-manifesto—a sketch of an anti-ideology that might point conservatives to the recovery of neglected first principles.

1. The first point is humility. As Augustine advised a friend in A.D. 411, “The first way, however, is humility; the second way is humility, and the third way is humility. . . .” Just because the G.O.P. has been humbled at the ballot box doesn’t mean that conservatives shouldn’t actively practice humility. It will be important when they are in power again.

2. The second point is human nature. Progressives see human nature as plastic, and individuals as pliable in the hands of the state. People’s beliefs should be refashioned, Progressives hold, in light of visionary leadership.

“What is government but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” James Madison asked. For Madison and his fellow American founders, human nature is the same at all times and in all places. Human beings are admixtures of evil and good, they argued. There is enough evil in each human heart to justify caution when crafting a government, but also enough good to commend “esteem and confidence.” Our form of government—republican [small “r”] government—“presupposes” more of the good qualities than any other form of government, Madison maintained.

Progressives portray the founders’ view of human nature—and government—as outdated and pessimistic. But this view—the Madisonian view—is not archaic or dour. To see human beings realistically—as they really are, neither as beasts nor as angels—is to see government realistically. Government as such can be limited in its functions but powerful in its protection of people’s rights.

3. The third point is self-government. The American founders and leading Progressive thinkers agreed that America was an experiment. They disagreed profoundly about the nature of the experiment.

For the founders, America was an experiment to see if human beings could govern themselves, whether they could live in liberty according to “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

For Progressives, both 100 years ago and today, America is a laboratory in which politically powerful experts attempt to find the right formula for social, economic, and political equality. Despite good intentions and decades of failure, the experts continue their experimentation in creating a new human being—a new American!—without seeing the resiliency and permanency of human nature.

Principled conservatism must start with the permanency of human nature.

4. The fourth point is civic education, or citizenship education. Too many Americans see the Constitution as a “living document.” Conservatives should help citizens understand that if the Constitution is to have any hold on us its principles must be enduring, not ever-changing according to political winds.

Too many Americans see the Constitution as the exclusive domain of lawyers and judges. Instead, we should help citizens understand the Constitution as their “charter of liberty.”

Too many Americans identify the Constitution strictly with the Bill of Rights. Conservatives should help citizens see the structure of the whole Constitution, and how that structure—with its federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances—is connected to the limitations on the federal government outlined in the Bill of Rights.

In short, by our words and in our deeds we conservatives should teach every American that to be a good citizen is to understand and defend the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—what Abraham Lincoln called the apple of gold and the frame of silver.



5. The fifth point is sacrificial action. Noble sacrifice for the sake of the common good ought to animate principled conservatism.

Conservatives make the argument that churches, synagogues, and civic organizations are the best providers of charity; let’s prove that true in tough economic times. Conservatives complain about irresponsible government spending; let’s work to end the corporate cronyism that has characterized some of the most recent largesse.

In the 19th century Nietzsche complained that conservatives, like crabs, were always walking backwards. Today necessitarians echo Nietzsche, and note that excessive attention to ancient and outmoded ideas will make conservatives crabby.

Prudence today counsels a return to constitutional first principles that have been forgotten.

The main purpose of constitutional conservatism is not to build a movement, elect a party, or even prepare the way for a new Reagan.

The purpose of constitutional conservatism is to recover and then uphold the principles upon which America was founded.

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of taking a group of Hillsdale College students to Gettysburg Battlefield. On November 19, 1863, 145 years ago today, Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.

In that speech Lincoln looked forward to a “new birth of freedom.” We will hear much about that theme in the coming months. As we do, let us remember, with Lincoln, that for a new birth to happen, our nation’s founding must be foremost in our thoughts and deeds.