A few days ago, I posted a brief statement of what I, as a conservative, seek to conserve. The first item on the list was what I regard as the foundational principle of all sound morality: the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of each and every member of the human family. Everything else I believe about ethics and politics in one way or another stands upon or presupposes that principle. Any form of “conservatism” (or “liberalism”) that denies it in principle or transgresses it in practice is alien to me.
That is why I believe that the conservative movement, though it can and should be a broad tent, simply cannot include or accommodate white supremacists or racists of any type, antisemites, eugenicists, or others whose ideologies are incompatible with belief in the inherent and equal dignity of all. As a conservative, I say that there is no place for such people in our movement.
So, while I understand and appreciate that politics is about “adding and multiplying, not subtracting and dividing,” and though I welcome conservatives representing a range of viewpoints on a wide swath of issues, I will not—I cannot—accept the idea that we have “no enemies to the right.” The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable.
Is this a call for “cancelation”? No. It’s a reminder that we conservatives stand for something—or should stand for something. We have core principles that are not negotiable.
I am—notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—committed to the principle of free speech for everybody, including people with whom I profoundly disagree even on the most important issues, indeed, including racists and other bigots. But defending their rights does not mean allying with them, welcoming them into our movement, or treating them as representing legitimate forms of conservatism.
I am also—again, notoriously, for some of my fellow conservatives—willing to engage people with whom I deeply disagree, so long as they are honest and are willing to do business in the proper currency of intellectual discourse, a currency consisting of reasons, evidence, and arguments. (It is pointless to engage bad faith actors, charlatans, and con men.) But, again, engaging and forcefully arguing against people who deny the inherent and equal dignity of all is one thing, welcoming them into the movement or treating their ideas and ideologies as representing legitimate forms of conservatism is something entirely different.
Let me be plain. American conservatism today faces a challenge. That challenge comes from those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity. They are seeking acceptance in the conservative movement and its institutions, and they do so with the ultimate objective of transforming them by undermining that commitment. They openly preach white supremacy and the hatred of Jews, among other noxious ideas. They no longer feel the need even to try to hide their bigotry.
It is incumbent upon those of us who maintain the “ancient faith” (to borrow a phrase from Lincoln) to make clear to friend and foe alike that we will not permit the integrity of our movement and its institutions to be compromised. We will not treat its foundational principle of inherent and equal human dignity as optional. On the contrary, we will insist on it, defending and advancing it with renewed dedication.
Do you know why we’ve seen The Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, and other evangelical leaders trying to suggest Charlie Kirk’s death is the result of a generic political problem, and not concentrated on one side? Because they have coddled and accommodated that side for years, trying to pretend that their positions on climate change or gun control or Marxist antiracism were the moral equivalents of trying to rescue babies in the womb and children from the trans surgeons.
So now they are in a position that they cannot speak the truth about what happened Wednesday. Because they would be indicting much of the very audience they’ve worked so hard to attract.
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
Two Democratic #6subat2023 Ohio lawmakers, Reps @AnitaSomaniMD and Rep @TWRader are introducing a “Conception Begins at Erection Act.” It would make it illegal to discharge semen or genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.
Congratulations to every single person on the left who’s been campaigning to destroy women’s and girls’ rights. Without you, there’d be no images like this.
Press earlier today: “Why are you here? Isn’t this like preaching to the choir?”
Maybe. But the choir needs to remember why we sing.
#InaugurationDay#DC #47
📷: @JVanMaren