Events in recent years reveal a certain confusion about the meaning of political conservatism. That was evident in the recent Alberta election when some so-called “conservatives” were openly supporting Rachel Notley and the NDP. What kind of “conservative" can support the NDP? Only a fake one, that’s for sure..But the debate about the meaning of conservatism is taking place in much of the English-speaking world, not just Alberta..Recently, a kind of political conservatism has emerged known as “national conservatism.” In 2019 an organization, called the Edmund Burke Foundation, was created to promote that perspective. Since that time, it's been hosting regular National Conservative Conferences. The chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation is Yoram Hazony, an Israeli-American philosopher and political theorist. Last year Hazony released a book providing his comprehensive explanation of national conservatism entitled, Conservatism: A Rediscovery.. Yoram HazonyYoram Hazony, chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation. .Hazony traces national conservatism back to fifteenth century England and the writings of Sir John Fortescue, who encouraged English nationalism and argued in favour of limited government. But the most important figure in the history of Anglo-American conservatism, according to Hazony, is John Selden. Selden was an influential lawyer and prominent leader in the English Parliament during the mid-seventeenth century. He played a key role in the defence of historic English liberties against King Charles I..Hazony also discusses American national conservatives who he identifies with the Federalist Party in the early years of the republic. Most prominent among this group were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay..The Anglo-American democracies were relatively conservative societies before the Second World War. Most people identified with Christianity — to one degree or another — and traditional Christian sexual morality was the norm. Indeed, President Franklin Roosevelt declared the war to be a conflict between “God-fearing democracies” and their enemies..However, the democracies changed after the war. The Nazis demonstrated extreme nationalism could lead to unspeakable persecution of minority ethnic groups and religions. Thus, the Anglo-American countries embraced what Hazony calls “Enlightenment liberalism” as a bulwark to uproot any sort of ethnic or religious tendencies that could put their countries on a path towards Naziism..On the good side, this led to the civil rights movement in the United States that overturned racist laws and policies which reduced African-Americans to second-class citizens. However, the influence of enlightenment liberalism also led to aggressive social, legal, and political attacks against the traditional family and religious institutions and practices..Central to these attacks were decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1947 it introduced the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state. That was a new way of understanding the relationship between Christianity and government that would have significant consequences..In line with its new understanding, the Supreme Court threw prayer (1962) and Bible-reading (1963) out of American public schools. As Hazony explains, “These and other Supreme Court decisions signaled the end of Christianity as a decisive and legitimate influence on public life in America.”.As Hazony argues, there is no such thing as a “neutral” government — there is always some sort of philosophy or worldview that informs law-making by the government: “a national government cannot, in fact, be neutral regarding the overarching framework that upholds the political life of the people. We know, too, that every government will uphold traditional religions such as Christianity and Judaism, or else it will substitute for them an atheistic framework such as Marxism or Enlightenment liberalism.”.With this in mind, Hazony proposes Christianity be restored to its place of influence in government and society: “Conservative democracy regards biblical religion as the only firm foundation for national independence, justice, and public morals in Western nations. In America and other traditionally Christian countries, Christianity should be the basis for public life and strongly reflected in government and other institutions, wherever a majority of the public so desires.”.In short, since there must be a philosophical basis to every political system, Christianity can best provide that basis once again in the U.S. and other Western countries..Canada and the United States never had national established churches. However, their political and legal systems were built upon a generally Christian worldview that was inherited from Britain, which was officially Christian and technically — but not in reality — still is..Secular liberalism is the source of many current problems — such as undermining the ideal of the traditional family — and a restoration of the Christian worldview as the normative framework and standard for public life would lead to a vast improvement..Immediately upon reading this, some people may fear national conservativism would lead to the persecution of minorities. But this is not the case. Hazony is clear that his vision of national conservatism includes “provision for Jews and other minorities to ensure that their traditions and way of life are not encumbered; and that the private life of dissenting individuals or communities should be protected within their own sphere.”.Of course, Hazony’s version of conservatism is not about to triumph in Alberta — or anywhere else for that matter — anytime soon. Nevertheless, it presents a clear vision of what genuine conservatism is and what it intends to conserve..The freedoms enjoyed by all nations of the Anglosphere are the fruit of a Christian heritage shared by those nations. As Hazony rightly argues, restoring the foundation of those freedoms requires restoring the Christian heritage from which it flows..In contrast, the “conservatism” represented by the old-guard Tories who supported Rachel Notley is not worthy of the name.
Events in recent years reveal a certain confusion about the meaning of political conservatism. That was evident in the recent Alberta election when some so-called “conservatives” were openly supporting Rachel Notley and the NDP. What kind of “conservative" can support the NDP? Only a fake one, that’s for sure..But the debate about the meaning of conservatism is taking place in much of the English-speaking world, not just Alberta..Recently, a kind of political conservatism has emerged known as “national conservatism.” In 2019 an organization, called the Edmund Burke Foundation, was created to promote that perspective. Since that time, it's been hosting regular National Conservative Conferences. The chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation is Yoram Hazony, an Israeli-American philosopher and political theorist. Last year Hazony released a book providing his comprehensive explanation of national conservatism entitled, Conservatism: A Rediscovery.. Yoram HazonyYoram Hazony, chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation. .Hazony traces national conservatism back to fifteenth century England and the writings of Sir John Fortescue, who encouraged English nationalism and argued in favour of limited government. But the most important figure in the history of Anglo-American conservatism, according to Hazony, is John Selden. Selden was an influential lawyer and prominent leader in the English Parliament during the mid-seventeenth century. He played a key role in the defence of historic English liberties against King Charles I..Hazony also discusses American national conservatives who he identifies with the Federalist Party in the early years of the republic. Most prominent among this group were George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay..The Anglo-American democracies were relatively conservative societies before the Second World War. Most people identified with Christianity — to one degree or another — and traditional Christian sexual morality was the norm. Indeed, President Franklin Roosevelt declared the war to be a conflict between “God-fearing democracies” and their enemies..However, the democracies changed after the war. The Nazis demonstrated extreme nationalism could lead to unspeakable persecution of minority ethnic groups and religions. Thus, the Anglo-American countries embraced what Hazony calls “Enlightenment liberalism” as a bulwark to uproot any sort of ethnic or religious tendencies that could put their countries on a path towards Naziism..On the good side, this led to the civil rights movement in the United States that overturned racist laws and policies which reduced African-Americans to second-class citizens. However, the influence of enlightenment liberalism also led to aggressive social, legal, and political attacks against the traditional family and religious institutions and practices..Central to these attacks were decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1947 it introduced the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state. That was a new way of understanding the relationship between Christianity and government that would have significant consequences..In line with its new understanding, the Supreme Court threw prayer (1962) and Bible-reading (1963) out of American public schools. As Hazony explains, “These and other Supreme Court decisions signaled the end of Christianity as a decisive and legitimate influence on public life in America.”.As Hazony argues, there is no such thing as a “neutral” government — there is always some sort of philosophy or worldview that informs law-making by the government: “a national government cannot, in fact, be neutral regarding the overarching framework that upholds the political life of the people. We know, too, that every government will uphold traditional religions such as Christianity and Judaism, or else it will substitute for them an atheistic framework such as Marxism or Enlightenment liberalism.”.With this in mind, Hazony proposes Christianity be restored to its place of influence in government and society: “Conservative democracy regards biblical religion as the only firm foundation for national independence, justice, and public morals in Western nations. In America and other traditionally Christian countries, Christianity should be the basis for public life and strongly reflected in government and other institutions, wherever a majority of the public so desires.”.In short, since there must be a philosophical basis to every political system, Christianity can best provide that basis once again in the U.S. and other Western countries..Canada and the United States never had national established churches. However, their political and legal systems were built upon a generally Christian worldview that was inherited from Britain, which was officially Christian and technically — but not in reality — still is..Secular liberalism is the source of many current problems — such as undermining the ideal of the traditional family — and a restoration of the Christian worldview as the normative framework and standard for public life would lead to a vast improvement..Immediately upon reading this, some people may fear national conservativism would lead to the persecution of minorities. But this is not the case. Hazony is clear that his vision of national conservatism includes “provision for Jews and other minorities to ensure that their traditions and way of life are not encumbered; and that the private life of dissenting individuals or communities should be protected within their own sphere.”.Of course, Hazony’s version of conservatism is not about to triumph in Alberta — or anywhere else for that matter — anytime soon. Nevertheless, it presents a clear vision of what genuine conservatism is and what it intends to conserve..The freedoms enjoyed by all nations of the Anglosphere are the fruit of a Christian heritage shared by those nations. As Hazony rightly argues, restoring the foundation of those freedoms requires restoring the Christian heritage from which it flows..In contrast, the “conservatism” represented by the old-guard Tories who supported Rachel Notley is not worthy of the name.
