“ It should go without saying that conservatives conserve institutions, they conserve and uphold the legitimate processes of government, and to the extent that decay has set into institutions or processes, they champion their restoration and renewal. ”
I’ll nitpick a tiny bit by saying that all institutions aren’t created equal. Many things meet the definition of “institution” that are deplorable and worthy of destruction. The Nazi Party, the CCP, the Stasi etc. all meet the definition of institution. It’s important to make distinctions and acknowledge that some institutions shouldn’t be preserved, but that the bar should be very high for which ones those are and conservatives should be erring on the side of on preserving institutions (a la Chesterton’s fence). Institutions can be removed but we must have a serious reason to do so and we must consider the function/purpose that institution was serving.
“I urge our fellow conservatives to offer the electorate a positive view of America’s future based on time-tested conservative values of limited government, an opportunity society, religious liberty, judicial conservatism and a strong national defense. Conservatism preserves institutions that foster these virtues”
This quotation from Judge Griffith makes that distinction. Conservatism doesn’t necessarily preserve institutions that conflict with those virtues (although we shouldn’t reflexively dismantle them either, but consider the consequences of doing so).
I think there are times when a conservative could dismantle a long-standing institution after considering well what would happen. For instance, privatizing the department of Veterans Affairs or the Post Office would be a big change but wouldn’t necessarily make someone a radical or a populist. Perhaps some institutional purposes could be better served by something other than what currently exists.
With all that said, otherwise I very much agree with your argument.
Well said sir.
Finally! We’ve been eagerly awaiting Part 3.
“ It should go without saying that conservatives conserve institutions, they conserve and uphold the legitimate processes of government, and to the extent that decay has set into institutions or processes, they champion their restoration and renewal. ”
I’ll nitpick a tiny bit by saying that all institutions aren’t created equal. Many things meet the definition of “institution” that are deplorable and worthy of destruction. The Nazi Party, the CCP, the Stasi etc. all meet the definition of institution. It’s important to make distinctions and acknowledge that some institutions shouldn’t be preserved, but that the bar should be very high for which ones those are and conservatives should be erring on the side of on preserving institutions (a la Chesterton’s fence). Institutions can be removed but we must have a serious reason to do so and we must consider the function/purpose that institution was serving.
“I urge our fellow conservatives to offer the electorate a positive view of America’s future based on time-tested conservative values of limited government, an opportunity society, religious liberty, judicial conservatism and a strong national defense. Conservatism preserves institutions that foster these virtues”
This quotation from Judge Griffith makes that distinction. Conservatism doesn’t necessarily preserve institutions that conflict with those virtues (although we shouldn’t reflexively dismantle them either, but consider the consequences of doing so).
I think there are times when a conservative could dismantle a long-standing institution after considering well what would happen. For instance, privatizing the department of Veterans Affairs or the Post Office would be a big change but wouldn’t necessarily make someone a radical or a populist. Perhaps some institutional purposes could be better served by something other than what currently exists.
With all that said, otherwise I very much agree with your argument.