Of all the silly ideas to have emerged from the wreckage that has been Canada’s conservative movement for the last 50 years, none has been more damaging for the prospects of conservatism, or more vacuous, than the idea of bifurcation, a notion that has now also taken root in American politics, manifesting itself in the conflict between conservative Republicans and their "Tea Party" allies on the one hand, and so-called moderate Republicans on the other.
For those who don’t know, bifurcation in this context refers to the division of conservatives into separate “fiscal” and “social” camps, and the belief that the objectives of these two camps are not only different from one another, but incompatible.
This idea found its ultimate expression in the elevation of the term “progressive conservative” in Canada from party name to ostensible political philosophy, a formulation of dubious intellectual integrity, but one clung to by a surprising number of people nonetheless. I still encounter those who, upon revealing themselves conservatives feel the need to qualify their views by offering the disclaimer “but I’m a progressive conservative”. So convoluted has their thinking become that for them, conservatism is, drinking good scotch or smoking fine cigars, a vice to be tolerated only in moderation.
It took the better part of a decade and three consecutive Liberal majority governments for conservatives to finally come together as political organizations. The time has now come for movement conservatives to follow the example set by the politicians, and to unite – not organizationally, but philosophically – by abandoning the destructive doctrine of bifurcation.
Some will no doubt say that this is impossible. I for one am not so sure.
Consider two of the biggest issues that fiscal and social conservatives have focused on respectively in the last number of years, both in Canada and, more recently, in America: deficits and same-sex marriage. On the surface, these two issues seem completely unrelated, one dealing with public finance, the other dealing with social policy. The discerning observer will note, however, that these two distinct issues stem from a common source - a government that is too expensive to finance comfortably, and so over-reaching that it fancies itself the arbiter of a new moral order.
High spending and high taxes, failing schools, a shortage of doctors and nurses, human rights commissions run amok, family breakdown, the assault on community standards…the list goes on and on. These problems are not isolated from one another; they are symptoms of a government colossus that has become so bloated and so all-powerful that it literally cannot help but interfere in the smallest of decisions that we make on behalf of ourselves and our families, often with disastrous consequences.
Liberal statism is the common foe of both fiscal and social conservatives, as well as traditionalist and libertarian conservatives. Our common goal, therefore, should be to reduce the size of government and restrain its power. Our reasons for wanting to accomplish this may differ, but all are equally valid.
Fiscal conservatives may believe that big government slows economic growth and jeopardizes prosperity; social conservatives may believe that big government undermines family and church; traditionalists might add, as Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed, that the line separating good and evil runs through the heart of every man, and that power concentrated in any individual or group of individuals is, therefore, an invitation to despotism; libertarians may believe that absent a compelling reason otherwise, the sole arbiter of personal behaviour ought to be the individual.
Regardless of what intellectual path we conservatives travel, the point of intersection for all branches of the conservative movement is a shared commitment to small government. Everything flows from there.
Bifurcation enthusiasts will immediately reject this conclusion, particularly as it pertains to social conservatives, arguing that “so-cons” don’t want to limit government, they want to expand it and use its power to impose their moral code on everyone else. Whenever I hear this objection I can’t help but marvel at how little conservatives know about their own political philosophy and, as a consequence, how easily they accept and retreat intellectually before the self-interested weltanschauung of the left.
It may be that social conservatives believe that liberty and democracy are cultural phenomena, and that the preservation of our free and democratic society depends largely on the preservation of that culture, including its traditional moral consensus. But thoughtful social conservatives (alas, there are many who are not) understand that the responsibility to preserve and to promote that moral consensus rests properly with autonomous civil institutions like family and church, not with the state, and that the state should mainly reflect and respect that consensus – not create it – while protecting the right of individuals to dissent.
Thoughtful social conservatives seek to limit the power and scope of the state as a means of safeguarding the influence of these autonomous institutions like church and family, thereby preventing the state from acquiring a monopoly on authority, the necessary precondition for the imposition of any single moral code. This is especially true with regard to the family.
Family is the basic unit of governance, and the principle source of education, in a free and democratic society. It’s where social and cultural procreation takes place, not just physical procreation; where the character of future generations is shaped; where the “habits of the heart”, to use de Tocqueville’s phrase, are formed. All conservatives, including fiscal conservatives, should be concerned with the breakdown of the natural family and the role state interference plays in that breakdown. Strong healthy families are essential to future economic prosperity. Where else but family do children learn the value of hard work, self-discipline, thrift and fiscal responsibility?
On the other hand, social conservatives need to become more active on fiscal policy. They need to understand the relationship between high government spending and high taxes. They need to understand that they have an interest as social conservatives in reducing that spending and cutting those taxes. It’s nice that the government would give allowances to families, but wouldn’t it be better for those families – indeed for everyone – if the cost of living went down as a result of real tax cuts and government reform? After all, what the government gives, the government can take away – especially if you deviate from that newly minted moral code liberals claim to fear, but can’t wait to impose.
So, just as fiscal conservatives have an interest in social conservatives achieving their goals, social conservatives have an interest in fiscal conservatives achieving theirs. Rather than sniping at one another then, each ought to support the aims of the other because, in the end, the success of both is essential to the success of either.
The great conservative commentator Russell Kirk once observed that conservatism is not a single doctrine, or even a set of doctrines. “It emerges naturally from an examination of first principles and an understanding of how we might live to realize those first principles,” he explained. In my view, one of the most important of these is limited government.
It’s time, therefore, for conservatives of all stripes, but especially fiscal and social conservatives, to end our internecine struggles and to work together to capture and cage the raging leviathan. Unless we do this, I fear that all of the effort we put into reforming those things of special interest to us as fiscal or social conservatives will come to naught.