The Right against America

Robert Nisbet was certainly a conservative theorist of some prominence, as Mike Rappaport indicates. Mike was picking up on Steve Hayward’s post, which called to task today’s “quantum conservatism” for its uncertainty principle. For good reason, Mike holds Nisbet as an exemplar of the differences between conservatives and libertarians.

But like Tocqueville, whose insights his best work elaborated on, sociologist Nisbet overlooks the core of American politics, which is the Declaration of Independence. Unless conservatives are selective about what it is they are conserving, they are no better, theoretically, than the radicals they claim to be combating. And libertarians cannot claim to defend liberty unless they work out a theory of governing. Indeed, both libertarians and conservatives must be radical to grasp the truth and thus transcend the confines of partisanship. This all demands a return to the Declaration and its argument for an equality more fundamental than “legal equality” (or “equality of result”).

Thus, Nisbet’s leading conservative identifying characteristic—“Conservatives view the population as composed not of individuals but of natural groups such as the family, locality, church, region, social class”—conflates some conservative understandings of society with the foundation of American politics. It is hostile to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As the scholars, both conservative and libertarian, agree in the indispensable volume Natural Rights Individualism and Progressivism, the Declaration focuses on individual rights, natural rights.

But natural rights needs to be translated into conventional rights; “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Natural law is violated by the stronger asserting their alleged natural rights to rule the weaker, which results in slavery. Hence natural law calls for equality, beginning with being neither a master nor a slave. Equality thus understood is the conservative principle. The 13th Amendment, limiting the private conduct of slavery, is an essential consequence of the Declaration. And Lincoln argued that the equality principle is at the heart of all morality as well as just governance.

Contrary to some traditionalist conservatives—Russell Kirk has been guilty of this, as even some of his most thoughtful advocates  must allow—the Declaration is not an abstract document. Contrary to Woodrow Wilson, it is both philosophic and practical: The “long train of abuses and usurpations” describes with some specificity the traits of unjust and tyrannical governments, then and now—e.g., imposing a lawless immigration policy (“obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners”); creating swarms of bureaucrats (“erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance”); abuse of power (“altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”), among others. The Declaration teaches both principle and prudence in the establishment of governments bringing about both “safety and happiness.” America’s founding document is both conservative and libertarian, showing how to govern and be governed justly for the sake of the purposes of human life and how to recognize tyranny and then proceed to replace it with a just and noble government. It also offers a prudent guide to both the aspirations and limitations of our foreign policy, as Harry Jaffa notes.

But is liberty enough? Some conservatives would prefer a particular religion as the human and political object; others notions of order; others virtue, moral, political, and intellectual. In fact, American politics has always combined liberty with these esteemed qualities, but for the sake of “safety and happiness.” Under modern conditions Aristotelian goals require Lockean means.

Given their respective limitations, conservatives and libertarians generally fail to appreciate the origins of America in war, together with the Civil War the most just wars ever fought. But constitutional government cannot survive based solely on Machiavellian force and fraud. But neither can our form of government and way of life survive without the wisdom of the serpent.

The moderation of a free and civilized human life requires the discipline of social institutions, the free market, and of religion, in addition to the rule of law or constitutionalism. That moderation no less requires the boldness of human liberty. The weaving together of moderation and boldness is the task of political philosophy.

Ken Masugi

Ken Masugi is a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute. He teaches in graduate programs in political science for Johns Hopkins University and for the Ashbrook Center of Ashland University. He has edited Interpreting Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, co-edited The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, and co-authored and co-edited several other books on American politics and political thought. In addition, he has worked ten years in the federal government as a speechwriter and on policy issues, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, where he was a special assistant to Chairman Clarence Thomas, and the Departments of Justice and Labor.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. David Upham says

    What’s most striking is that the Founders generally did not disagree in being libertarian and conservative at the same time: the following were not, I believe controversial among the Founders : (1) the equal dignity of the individual in his Creator-given rights, (2) the right and duty of the community of citizens to govern to secure these rights, (3) the necessity of religion, constitutional institutions as well as entrepreneurial, martial, and martial virtues, to secure both (1) and (2), and (4) more generally, the difficulty in establishing and maintaining government that respects both (1) and (2).

  2. gabe says

    good article and good response!
    Yet, like the young lad lamenting the loss of his puppy and asking his dad, “Why,” we are compelled to ask why. Why is it so, why are we and the American regime not what we / it ought to be? Because, make no mistake, that precious young creature is dead! We are left with granite and marble edifices, conveying only a distant hint of what we were and were intended to be, of men who would be summarily rejected at the polls today were they to have the stomach to contest a modern election / debate.
    Is Jaffa’s claimed flaw in our founding to blame? Or is it in ourselves?
    Were the founders too optimistic in the ability of a people to govern themselves with reason such that their proposition “would long endure?”
    We can list a thousand reasons why we have failed – but, fail, we have. Yes, we can rightly point to the corrosive influence of Progressivism, but it too would have failed were it not accepted by so many of the citizenry AND ruling elite on both sides of the aisle.
    do I have presume to have an answer? absolutely not?
    But one really wishes that a true Leader would emerge. Or are we no longer capable of creating or nurturing one in this new regime?

  3. David Upham says


    Great questions–and I’ve asked them myself, and I don’t have any definitive answers. By reason, I think we can identify some very proximate causes of our national crisis, and by faith, I think I know the ultimate cause of all our problems (see Genesis), but I don’t think anyone can give a clear and comprehensive account of how/why the American people have enjoyed such an abundance of freedom, prosperity, peace and what if anything we can do, or refrain from doing, to preserve these goods. If it’s any consolation, I think our Constitution has been in worse shape before: perhaps the 1840s-1850s, and pretty bad was 1890s-1920s.

  4. Erik Root says

    The only qualification I would make is that the South split Declarationists from Libertarianism. The South became free market capitalists in the service of slavery–the South beginning around 1820 began making free market arguments against the North in abstentia of the rights of man–which philosophically undermines their own argument for they viewed rights as mere self-interest to the exclusion of nature and duties. Many libertarians to this day make the same mistake.

  5. gabe says

    Thanks for the uplift!
    In moments of unbridled optimism (delusion, perhaps) I think the answer is simply, “Grace.” – to live a life of grace – and then I see the likes of a John McCain, Chuck Schumer et al – and i despair of solutions!!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>