Conservatives: Grumps or Nice Guys?

by Lee Bockhorn

Conservatives have always had an "image problem," but lately that burden has become more acute. Commonly lumped together as a group of grumpy old men or angry white males, conservatives are now being forced to defend themselves against charges that they form a "right­wing conspiracy" out to get the President (courtesy of Hillary Clinton), or that they wish to "resegregate" higher education in America (courtesy of Lee Bollinger).

Certainly the prevailing wind in our nation's media and intellectual circles contributes to this attitude. In a world where a person's "compassion" is measured by the dollar amount they believe should be spent on government welfare programs, conservatives have a tough road to hoe. And of course, there are always token conservatives who seem to be more than willing to fulfill the stereotypes: the Pat Buchanans and David Jayes of the world, whose passions seem to be motivated by resentment as much as by ideas. The media, in turn, is quick to portray such figures as representative of all conservatives.

This is not to deny that conservatives can often be a dour bunch. It is difficult to smile when you are forced to conclude that cultural and moral principles are being toppled carelessly all around you like so many bowling pins, with little thought of the consequences. David Gelernter has written that debating whether the country is getting better or worse is a favorite party game among conservatives; as one who has played the game often, let me assure you that the pessimists usually win - a simple glance at any day's headlines proves them out.

Given this, however, those who wish to portray conservatives as a bunch of cranks intent on spoiling everyone else's march to a bright Utopia fail to make an important distinction. While conservatives' countenances may be grim, their motives are almost always pure. No conservative that I can think of wishes to "resegregate" higher education, just because they believe that racial preferences in admissions are morally and legally dubious. Similarly, while most conservatives detest everything that Bill Clinton stands for, most would also say that the consequences for our nation of his impeachment or resignation would be regretful. (Not only would it increase American cynicism about politics, but Al Gore would be president - a scary thought indeed.)

What, then, lies behind the efforts of the Lee Bollingers and Hillary Clintons of the world to cast conservatives as the bogeymen, out to get everyone? Perhaps, understandably, their liberal world view has convinced them that this is true; however, I am inclined to doubt this. Does President Bollinger really think that conservatives who oppose racial preferences are the 90's equivalent of so many George Wallaces, standing at the schoolhouse door? (That is a question I would like to ask him at one of his "fireside chats.") I would like to give Bollinger and Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that their name­calling is more rhetoric than conviction. It is a common tactic in politics, particularly among those on the Left, to question your opponents' motives when you cannot adequately construct reasoned responses to their arguments. Certainly rhetoric is all that remains at Bollinger's disposal, having to defend admissions policies which so blatantly draw distinctions solely upon race; likewise for Mrs. Clinton, who must defend a husband who, if past actions are any indication, treated a 21 year old intern like a sexual party favor.

What then, is the average observer of American life to conclude as he or she attempts to sort out all these notions of what conservatives are actually like? Are we conservatives really such wet blankets, desiring to kick old ladies out onto the street and deny children their school lunches? Don't believe it for a second. Conservatism is certainly a fabric of political thought woven from many different strands - libertarians, laissez-faire capitalists, born-again Christians, converted liberals, antiquarians, and so on - and, like any such fabric, conservatism has the occasional loose thread; the isolated misanthrope or xenophobe. However, the best and most enduring form of conservatism is a powerful combination of two proven truths: prudence, when presented with the possibility of change or rejection of existing principles and cultural mores (hence conservatives' criticism of decadent popular culture and the Left's moral relativism); and secondly, a healthy respect for the ability of ordinary persons to do extraordinary things when given the freedom to shape their destinies (hence their suspicion of burdensome, centralized government). Far from being evil bogeymen, conservatives are passionate yet reasoned defenders of what they believe is right. If that makes us "bogeymen," we have only one reply: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." MR

Lee Bockhorn is a senior in political science and music, and managing editor of the Review. He's checking into a sanitarium after completing his recital this term.

This article was published in the 11 March 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 8).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.