The Inherent Flaw of Conservatism

Another Lode article here follows:

For as long as I can remember, I've been a conservative—that is, one who
clings to tradition, especially as it pertains to culture and politics.
I've never held change to be bad per se, but neither have I  accepted it
as patently good.  It should only be enacted if absolutely necessary.
One calls to mind Thomas Jefferson's unheeded suggestion that laws be
discussed by the legislature for a full year before being enacted.  While
imperfect, it would have saved us from the Patriot Act, which, like most
of our laws, was passed before being fully read, let alone extensively
deliberated upon.

I'm not exactly sure what drew me to conservatism.  I hesitate to use the
famous, though spurious, Winston Churchill quip: “If you're not a liberal
when you're 25, you have no heart.  If you're not a conservative by the
time you're 35, you have no brain.” because while it accurately notes
that thinking will almost invariably lead to conservatism, it seems to
suggest, I think unfairly, that I haven't a heart.

Something of an eternal pessimist, I never doubted that liberalism had
its merits, but it always seemed extraordinarily foolish to place so much
faith in humanity.   As H.L. Mencken once observed, “It is a sin to
believe in the evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.”  It would be
grand if the government could keep business in line, protect the poor,
and enforce justice.  Unfortunately, it almost never does so.

In short, while liberals may achieve victories, they will never see the
fruition of their plans.  This is actually rather convenient, as the
problems which liberalism has not solved can be solved by... more
liberalism, as in: if only we spent more money on public education,
students wouldn't be illiterate morons, and other nefarious lies.

But conservatism has a flaw which might be even more damning than that of
liberalism.  Quite simply, conservatism does not work.  I do not mean
that minimal taxes and a government which is not wholly invasive is not
desirous, or that it cannot exist.  The Founding Fathers erected a
government which most conservatives still hold to be marvelous.  But that
government no longer exists as such; it has grown to monstrous
proportions, and it was inevitable that it would do so.

Quite simply, the folly of conservatism lies in its defensive nature; it
can mitigate the damage done by the forces of liberalism, but it can
never prevent their longterm success.  In fact, judging from recent
history, mitigate seems far too strong a word.   The forces of
“conservatism” have served to facilitate its demise, as Bush and company
have continued to feed the government behemoth.

I began to realize this some time ago.  It is now painfully obvious to
all but the most imbecilic of men.  In fact, one seldom sees anyone
arguing that the GOP is even vaguely conservative anymore; instead one
hears that we must not surrender in the War on Terror, or that Democrats
will raise our taxes and nominate liberal judges.  All of which serves to
further demonstrate the stupidity of conservatism.

If I was one of the few to realize this in time to vote, futilely, for a
third party candidate rather than to re-elect Bush, I am quite late to
the historical party.  In 1915, G.K. Chesterton wrote a book called
Orthodoxy.  Widely recognized as his best work, and my own personal
favorite, therein he has this to say:  “[A]ll conservatism is based upon
the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But
you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of
change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If
you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it
again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you
want the old white post you must have a new white post.”

Conservatives must reject their defensive strategy if they are ever to
achieve their goals.  In a word, they must cease to be conservatives.