Back in 2019, I decided to affiliate the Philly Political Agnostics meetup with the Burke-Paine Society, a non-profit organization founded in 2017 that brings together political discussion groups with the aim of fulfilling 3 objectives: (1) rebuild cross-partisan trust, (2) redefine national identity, and (3) ignite a political renaissance. The name of the group is based on Yuval Levin's 2013 book, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left. Levin sees Burkean conservatism & Painean liberalism not as utterly opposed political philosophies, but rather as two wings of a broader political philosophy - i.e. the "classical liberalism" of the Enlightenment that advocated for a constitutional republic with a separation of powers, free & fair elections, free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, equality before the law, due process, etc.
For the last year or so, I've been meaning to put together a pair of meetups as an introduction to Burkean conservatism and Painean liberalism. However, we also need to contend with the (seemingly) recent decline in support for certain classical liberal principles & democratic norms, on both ends of the political spectrum. That's what this group discussion and the next will cover.
The purpose of this meetup is two-fold: (1) we want to assess how much our meetup's emphasis on civility, rational inquiry, intellectual humility & pragmatism overlaps with the Burkean conservative wing of the classical liberal tradition, and (2) we'll consider whether current trends within American conservatism are moving away from the "constitutional conservatism" that tries to preserve the classical liberal values we inherited from the Founders.
In the 1st section, we'll review the history of the American conservative movement from its genesis in the opposition to FDR's New Deal & the anti-communist movement of the 1950s up through the Bush administration's War on Terror in the early 2000s. We'll consider how the shifting factions within the conservative movement related to the classical liberal tradition, and ask whether the GOP's fidelity to the Founding principles was undermined by the "Southern strategy" that won over former segregrationists, the rise of the Religious Right, and the decline of the liberal wing of Rockefeller Republicans.
In the 2nd section, we'll look at how the conservative movement was thrown into turmoil during the Obama years by the rise of the Tea Party and the short-lived "libertarian moment". We'll consider whether it was racial resentment or economic anxiety that provoked not only the grassroots opposition to Obama but also a growing disdain towards the GOP establishment.
In the 3rd section, we'll look at how two branches of the Straussian intellectual tradition reacted very differently to the rise of Donald Trump, with the "neocons" on the East Coast becoming Never Trumpers and the "Claremonsters" on the West Coast becoming ardently pro-Trump. We'll consider whether Straussianism is compatible with the classical liberal tradition or is more in line with Machiavellianism & reactionary politics.
In the 4th section, we'll look at how Christian conservatives became divided during the Trump presidency over not only whether they should support Trump, but also over whether they should continue to support the major principles of classical liberalism. In particular, we'll look at the points made in recent debates between David French & Sohrab Ahmari and Jonah Goldberg & Patrick Deneen.
Although this discussion will focus more on historic shifts in conservative political philosophy than broader trends in public opinion and at points it may seem like hair-splitting or wonkery, there's 3 reasons you may want to take these philosophical debates seriously:
(1) Some of these pundits & scholars may become influential within the GOP & various think tanks, in which case their ideas may have a big effect on policymaking;
(2) Even if you think economic & demographic trends shape politics far more than ideas, these pundits & scholars may be attuned to how these trends are changing the meaning of "conservatism";
(3) Even if you think these pundits & scholars are just imposing a simplistic narrative onto complex & conflicting trends, refuting them may help you form a better theory of what's really going on.
RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:
Back in January of 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Can & Should We Be Politically Agnostic?" where we talked about how classical liberal values were compatible with epistemic humility. In the 3rd section, we talked about how a type of political agnosticism evolved among conservatives during the Cold War as a response to Communism, based on Eric Vogelin's notion of totalitarianism as attempting to "immanentize the eschaton", Michael Oakeshott's focus on "nomocracy" (i.e. rule of law) instead of "teleocracy" (i.e. judicial activism), and Karl Popper's preference for "piecemeal social engineering": https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/dxmsjqyzcbrb/
Back in December of 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Can We Depolarize Politics?" and in the 2nd section we looked at the debate over the effects of Nixon's "Southern strategy" on the G.O.P. and why the Republicans in Congress have voted more consistently conservative & been less amenable to bipartisan compromise since the 1980s & '90s. We debated whether this asymmetric polarization signals a "radicalization" of the G.O.P. from the influx of former Southern segregationists and the Religious Right or merely more ideological consistency. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/txqhxqyzqbtb/
In March of 2018, we had a meetup entitled "What Can We Learn From the 2016 Election?" and in the 4th section we talked about whether political science studies proved Trump's election was motivated by white racism rather than economic anxiety, as well as how "just world belief" and resentment of P.C. rhetoric might be mistaken for racism. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxfbgb/
Back in March, we had a meetup called "Should We Base Politics On Science Or Religion?" and in the 1st section we discussed the legal arguments surrounding whether the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation with religious tolerance or a secular nation with separation of church & state. https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/mjlzgrybcfbcb/
