The example you give, vouchers, is a proposal that as far as I know originated with the libertarian wing of movement conservatism. It is, to be sure, an idea that has a lot of appeal to other types of conservatives, but for vastly different reasons than it appeals to libertarians. For the traditionalist who supports vouchers, the idea has appeal not because it will introduce competition to the school system but because it will allow them to have more control over the values their children learn. In other words, most conservatives who support vouchers do so primarily because it allows them to make sure they preserve traditional values, since public education is of necessity secular.

And this isn’t to say that conservatives of a Burkean variety are incapable of proposing change; rather it is to say that a conservative worldview will emphasize changes that promote stability over growth.

I agree that conservatism, at least classical American conservatism, tends to not be an agent for change. So then the question is whether or not it is worthwhile as a leading ideology? If it can’t implement change, then it would seem its role remains, as you put it, anti-radicalism, or rather, to pump the brakes now and then or to grab the wheel when liberals push too far/too fast. I guess in a culture where we like to have clear leaders and clear subordinates, what would this say about the power structure in Washington?

I’m also thinking about certain other issues like education, where i believe conservatives are actually leading by offering more serious alternatives like vouchers and charter schools. This seems to contradict the reality that both you and I admit to which is that conservatives are usually not out front on these kinds of issues.

Ross Douthat would certainly argue that conservatives can be agents for change as well, with some of the innovative family-centered policies he is suggesting.

Regardless, conservatism is not usually a forceful engine of change, wheras liberalism (both classical and modern) very much are. Again, though, I view this as a very important and necessary role.

“No. True conservatism is not about recreating long-dead traditions; it is about preserving existing traditions. If SSM were to be legalized today, 100 years from now the appropriate conservative position on SSM would be to preserve it if there were a movement to eliminate it.”

Maybe this is where my notion of a Progressive Conservatism verses a static ‘Father-Knows-Best’ type of conservatism comes into play. I would argue, and Disraeli and T. Roosevelt did as well, that forward movement is inevitable. The contrast between conservastism and liberalism, in my mind, is simply on the pace of change and if it takes old norms into account or throws them out whenever a new idea comes along or there is a crack in the wall of contemporary social barriers.

My position on SSM, to use your example, is that the basic power of marriage i.e. two people taking responsibility for one another and building something that is stronger than its individual pieces, is something we should offer to more people, not less. So that is forward progress I guess. The conservative in me though says let’s be really careful as we expand access and watch the results closely. We have our ‘traditions’ for a reason and I think conservative restraint is what keeps liberals from mashing the accelarator to the floor every chance they get.

To paraphrase something I heard recently….traditions are not good because they are old, they are old because they are good. Thousands of years of mostly man/woman marriage seems to imply something beyond bigotry and close-mindness. I just want to listen to that voice as well as the new ones.

Dan – I think your question is pretty similar to what Ross is arguing are the flaws in my argument, so I’ll have a nice and long answer tonight. But the short, short response to your more specific question is that this imagined new conservative coalition along the lines of Deneen, Dreher, and Larison need not be “anti-growth.” It’s much more “pro-stability.” There is some pretty interesting polling data out there that would suggest such a platform would be quite electorally viable – one really good example of that is the fact that a significant majority of Americans are opposed to free trade (at least as long as you don’t associate the concept with either party), even though it’s close to indisputable that free trade spurs economic growth. Part of that, I think, is that people really do place a lot of value in stability and security.

I guess one way to think of it is this: would you rather be in a situation where you knew you would be able to have the same job for the next 20 years, earning $40,000 a year that whole time ($2,000,000 total) or where you would likely have to change jobs every four or five years, possibly move to a new city once or twice in the process, but also likely earn 50% more in the process (maybe allowing you to retire a little sooner)? For me, I’d probably choose the latter….but even for me, it’s not an easy question.

I was talking with my wife about the irony of religion, which acts in a similar fashion. It preserves traditions and makes them difficult to change. So, if SSM ever becomes widely accepted in religious communitites, it will in a sense be better preserved, harder to destroy. And at the same time, the religious elements within society also have provided the most resistance. So it’s an Ironical Situation. But I think despite all the pushback from religion to things that have become widely socially acceptable, in the end its very valuable to preserve human tradition – new tradition is not a paradoxical statement either – and I think conservatism fills a similar role in politics and culture as well.