History of Conservatism: How every party has abandoned the conservative

The first thing one must do in an undertaking of this nature is define his terms. What exactly is a conservative? The Free Online Dictionary defines conservative as “favoring traditional views and values:; tending to oppose change.” This is a fair enough definition, but what exactly does it mean to have a traditional view of government since we are talking about conservatives in government? There are two main philosophies of government. One is Natural Law, which is the idea that the people get their rights from their Creator or nature and the government is there to protect those rights and follow the Natural Law. The second view is Positivism, which states that the government gives you your rights. I do not think it necessary to prove the Natural Law view is the one that is the traditional view. The Magna Charta was a Natural Law document so what the American Colonists were fighting for in the American Revolution was their Natural Rights. This is exactly what the opening of the Declaration of Independence teaches us. We have inalienable rights from our creator. Thus, the American Revolution was about the protection of Natural Rights. So the traditional view in American government and politics is Natural Law. The tending to oppose change part of conservatism is easy enough in America. A conservative is one then who wishes to stick to the constitution and not change it or the ways we govern. Thus, the people that are so often called ‘strict constructionists’ and ‘originalists’ in their view of the constitution then are conservatives. However, one might notice from the definition of conservative that they can be slow to act. They tend to oppose change and thus are better at opposing plans and action than actually coming up with a positive plan on how to proceed. This will be easily seen as we trace the history of conservatism in America and how often it is used and then betrayed by the political parties.

It should be noted up front as well that the Conservatives are the majority. I think the historical survey will bear that out in full. But seeing as this will be a highly debated point, I will return to it in a later chapter.

This history of the Conservative movement in America then is one riddled with failure, but they bring only success to the party they support. This may seem like a contradiction, but I assure it is not. Conservatives themselves fail more often than not to stop the growth of government, and the invention of new ways to govern outside of the Constitution. They have failed to keep Natural Law as the basis for our society, and they have failed to control the organs of government for all, but extremely short periods of time. Yet, the support and the votes of the conservatives have brought success to the party that currently woos the conservative vote. Again the historical survey will bring this more the forefront, but it needs to be said now. It needs to be said now because we need to understand that the Conservative movement is not attached to a particular party. Conservative and Republican are not synonyms. In fact the Republican Party was founded to be against the Conservatives in America. The Conservatives spent a long time in the Democratic Party, but again, the Democratic Party was founded ton the back of a man who was only slightly conservative, and thus it was not a party for the Conservatives.

Why then do the Conservatives win their party elections, but not ever control the parties themselves? This fundamental question is answered again in the definition of conservative. Conservatives do not want power, they want stability. Political parties are founded to get and keep power, and dare I say it, even grow their own power. Conservatives do not wish to see a growth in power and are not willing to do whatever it takes to get the power. Thus, they cannot control a political party. They will not be able take the reigns of power and keep them because their message is usually “no”. It is hard to win people over to “no”. But it is easy to win people over to “I will give you money if you are poor” or “I will give you money not to grow corn.” That is a much easier sell. Add in the fact that Conservatives argue for and believe in Natural Law, and their goose is cooked. Believing in natural law means their ethical standards are fixed. They cannot change. The non-conservatives whether we call them liberals or progressives or whatever are not bound by traditional morals. Sure, some believe in them and follow them, but the party or group that holds to Postivism is by definition not bound by morals. They are able to change morality in order to serve their needs. A good example of this is all of the lying that is now so common in politics. How often does someone come out and say “I did not have sex with that woman” and it turns out they did. Or say “I was not briefed on that issue”, and they were. Lying is a means to an end, not a violation of a moral code. That is why so many people in power have no problem with cheating on taxes because they do not believe in moral codes, they believe in changing codes. Which also means they believe that ethical standards do not apply to them. Only governmental standards apply to them, and sometimes those do not apply either because those standards can be changed.

The goal of this endeavor is to show that Conservatism is a major force in America, indeed a necessary force. But also to show the flaws in the Conservative movement and it current way of operating. Historical awareness is important in anything, and judging from how loosely the word "conservative" is thrown around these days, a good dose of historical awareness is necessary. This I hope to accomplish in upcoming posts.

Seven Pounds Movie Review

I just finished watching Seven Pounds with Will Smith. It is a good movie. It is yet another Will Smith movie with very Christological references and themes. It is not quite as good as I am Legend with Will Smith, but mainly because I thought some of the early filmography of Seven Pounds was a little weak and/or confusing. But, other than that minor complaint, the movie is excellent. I don’t want to give too much away, but even the trailers let you know that it is a movie about a man giving gifts to others. Christ also gives gifts to men. How the gifts are given is important and the three main people focused on in this movie are all very biblically explained. One receives a new life. That phraseology is even used in the movie. Sight is also given to the blind. Scriptural references find their way into that exchange as well including one very obvious “slow to anger” comment. The third receives a new heart, and it is hard to imagine a more scriptural picture than that. I highly recommend this movie. Like I said, the beginning is a little slow because of the filming, but stick with it. It is a gripping movie that has a good message. Well done art that can be enjoyed by all above the age of 13.

Did you know

Here is something you didn’t hear on the news. Many pro-lifers were arrested for peacefully protesting Notre Dame’s awarding an honorary doctorate to President Obama. Among those arrested was a Mrs. Norma McCorvey, better known as “Roe” from Roe v Wade. She was arrested as an anti-abortion protester.

Forgotten Reformer: Jan Laski

I just returned from the RCUS Synod where we heard Rev. Eric Kayayan give a few talks about Calvin in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth. He did a good job talking about Calvin’s life and how that contributed to his life and work. However, it reminded me of my year long task to speak more of the forgotten reformers. Calvin was a great reformer, but he was primarily a ‘man of letters’ as they were called back then. He did preach the gospel without a doubt, and he organized Geneva, but his main influence is through his written work. He was not a foot solider of the reformation. Again, I have nothing against Calvin, I just think some of the other guys need to get more publicity.

One of those men is Jan Laski. Laski was a polish man borin in 1499. Laski was a Romanist priest, who converted to the Reformed faith. When that happened is not easy to tell, but it was clearly before 1542. It probably happened while he was in Basel. He went there in 1523 where he met Erasmus, Oecolampadius, and Zwingli. He became a pastor in Emden in 1542 clearly at this point preaching the Reformation and the doctrines of grace. He became the first superintendent of the Reformed Church in East Friesland in 1545. Persecution from the Holy Roman Empire and some Lutherans would chase him from Emden to England, where he pastored at the famous Stranger’s Church in London. This church had enormous influence on the Puritan movement as this church was outside of the rules of the Church of England. Laski supported Hooper in his refusal to wear the Vestiments. Bloody Mary would take the English throne and Laski was on the move again. He went to Brandenburg for a time, but would return to try and help reform his homeland of Poland. Laski was considered a heretic and was wanted for heresy, but he traveled back to Poland anyway. It was in Poland in 1560 that he died.

Laski’s influence cannot be overstated. Laski was a follower of Zwingli’s view of the supper, not Calvin’s view. Laski is a major influence in Puritanism, one that is often overlooked today. Just as a way of proof that Laski was more influential than Calvin with the faction that would become known as Puritans is the incident at Wesel. Wesel was a German town that had an exile church during the reign of Mary. The church had both French and English members. Many of the English wished to follow the Church of England, and the Church of England told the Wesel church that if they simply accepted a couple of the vestments they would be allowed to worship unmolested. The church wrote to both Laski and Calvin for advice. Calvin advised that they keep the vestments since they were indifferent theologically (for Calvin at least), and then the church would not split. Laski advised the church to reject the vestments and suffer the consequences. The church took Laski’s advice and all non-conformist, including the French, were kicked out of the church. Laski had great influence.

Laski helped form the ideas of church government that still impact the Presbyterian church today, namely that elders and ministers are the same except that ministers are able to preach and give the sacraments. Laski influenced the Heidelberg Catechism with some of his own early catechisms. Laski helped introduce the Reformation in Emden, England, Netherlands, and Poland at least. His contemporaries held him in high regard. Jerome Zanchy, Italian Reformer who taught at Heidelberg, held that Laski’s name should always be mentioned in the same breath with Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli.

The Rev. Eric Kayayan spoke beautifully about Calvin, and rightly so. He spoke of the great influence of Calvin, and again, rightly so. Rev. Kayayan mentioned all the people to whom Calvin wrote letters, such as the people in England, the exile churches, and even King Sigismund of Poland. It hit me then that Calvin was able to write to these people because of the labors of others, such as Laski. Would Calvin have been able to write to Sigismund if Laski had not done such good work? Would Calvin have had any influence in England if it had not been for Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski? Probably not. That is why Jan Laski needs to be remembered. He is a man who was a true foot soldier of the Reformation.