Dear Dave Rubin,
First, I wanted to let you know that I enjoy your show. I think the thing I love the most is how you promote civil discourse, even among those you disagree with: which is one of the most important virtues in life. I disagree with you on many things as a Christian, evangelical, conservative. However, I am always glad to see those I disagree with being open to conversation.
I am writing this open letter as a response to one of your videos with Larry Elder, particularly the part where you talk about the definition of "conservative". I dissent to the definition that you gave, as well as the one that I heard Larry give. In your video you define conservatism "... to resist sudden change... and adherence to traditional values". I couldn't disagree more with this definition. Remember, dictionaries don't tell us how we ought to use certain words, but rather how society already uses them.
Even when I was 19, I was already registered as a Republican, but I was averse to identifying as a "conservative" because of this definition. It wasn't until a mentor of mine provided me with a new definition that I started to identify as a conservative. I think many people my age may be averse to identifying as a "conservative" because they equate the word to a traditionalist. I am not a traditionalist, nor do I "resist sudden change". There are plenty of changes I (and my conservative friends) would love to see happen overnight. Simultaneously, conservatives and liberals each have changes that they would not like to see.
For anyone reading this, I'd like to give my personal definition of conservatism. I would like to present a definition that could appeal not just to evangelicals, but also to the young, atheists, and libertarians. Also, conservatives are not libertarians, as Larry Elder stated. (And we are not all old stuffy white men in the one-percent, either.) There may be some overlap between conservative and libertarian philosophies and goals, but they are different.
This definition of conservatism is my own, and it comes in three parts. These are not three isolated parts, but they build each on top of the other. From the top down they are: conservative (strict) interpretation of the Constitution, pragmatism, and Natural law.
1. Conservative Constitutionalist- I cannot, in a blog post, go into all the intricacies of what this means and why it's important. America has changed a great deal over the years, but we believe that one of the things that makes America great is its Constitution. A government formed by "We the people", as the preamble says, and a nation ruled primarily by written laws rather than by the whim of leaders. Under the US Constitution, and other state and local laws, leaders are supposed to be limited by the law, just like regular people. In fact, maybe even more so than regular people.
That's just one reason why we believe in interpreting it strictly (conservatively), rather than letting leaders bend the laws to fit their agenda. We believe that everyone should follow the laws, or there is no purpose in having the laws anyway. Also, myself and many other conservatives and libertarians would agree, it is better to have just a few basic laws. Fewer laws, and more effective laws, is always better than having thousands of more laws than anyone will ever know or follow. Again, what is the point in a law if no one follows it, or even knows about it?
As a side note, interpreting the Constitution Conservatively means we take into account what the founding fathers meant by what is written therein. We can look at things like other writings of the founders, including the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers, works of individual founders, and what certain words meant back then; and these things give us a better understanding of what the founders were saying. Now you can argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine the complexities of today's world, but I would say the principles of human nature and political science don't change.
2. Pragmatism- this is is the definition that my mentor gave me for conservatism. "Conservatives are for what WORKS!" he quipped. And we are arguing that progressivism, communism, fascism, and all other collectivist systems do not work to create happy and prosperous societies. Neither do far-right philosophies like anarchy. We are not against change, instead we want to implement changes that have been tested and proven to work. Try it on a small scale, before enforcing it on the whole country.
We try to resist the human urge to be idealists, and fight for some utopia, because we understand that nothing is perfect. Instead, we simply labor to just make society better. Dennis Prager outlines it this way: liberals ask "does it feel good", conservatives ask "does it do good".
So we are very pragmatic, at least to a certain degree. However, anyone who has ever taken philosophy 101 can show you the problem with pragmatic philosophy. You can always argue that something works, because it meets a given set of goals, but the question remains is that thing right? Is it true? So we must delve deeper into ethics.
3. Natural law- Natural law comes from JudeoChristian theology, but you don't have to be religious to believe it. It is a code of ethics that transcends religion and culture. It says that morality and ethics can be clearly seen, and known intuitively, through the conscience. This is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo, but refers to the fact (studies in moral psychology have shown this) that the emotional, subconscious part of our brain is responsible for making moral judgments.
I also believe that our understanding of natural law is progressive, as individuals and as a society. For instance, through most of human history slavery was an acceptable practice. Then individuals began to become convicted that it was wrong, and they banded together to get written laws passed to reflect the Natural Law.
America is founded on Natural Law, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Let's note a few things: first off these truths are self-evident (just like Natural Law). Second, these rights are not granted by the government. They are innate, and our government only agrees not to infringe upon them. This is what's so revolutionary about America. All other countries before that taught that God gave power to kings to grant rights (commodities) to citizens. In American philosophy, God grants rights to the people, and then tells government to protect those rights. Now since you are an atheist, you could say that nature granted these, but you cannot deny that these rights are inherent.
Finally, Natural Law is not determined by popularity. Slavery was always wrong, even when it was accepted by the majority. Racism and prejudice have always been wrong, even when they were socially acceptable and popular.
So conservatives are basically the defenders of natural law. Therefore, we believe in a transcendent ethical system. We tend to be more pragmatic and less idealistic (in a Utopian way). Because of these things, we fight for smaller government and for Constitutional limitations.
I am not sure of all of my positions on all of the issues, but this would be my definition for conservatism. I would love to come on your show and talk about this definition more in depth, and talk more about Natural Law. I hope your show continues to gain traction, and this idea of civil discourse continues to spread.
Sincerely,
Frank Perseo
(@frank_perseo)
