Conservatism and Property

Why be a conservative?

I believe conservatism springs from the realization that our lives are founded on the great achievements of the past. For example, we could not live without agriculture, which was developed slowly through millennia, almost invisible in the historical record. Shouldn’t we be wary about innovations that might threaten our daily bread?

And likewise for modern medicine, sewage systems and other public health measures, including the power of quarantine, as well as vaccines and antibiotics. Although some of these are of recent provenance, taken together they have resulted in vastly improved life expectancy and lower infant mortality. Defending these achievements should be as reflexive as our instinct for survival—or so we might assume.

And in the political sphere there are similar monuments of the past, including democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion and speech, abolition of slavery and torture and child labor, the emancipation of women and racial minorities, and compulsory public education. Surely to revise these institutions would threaten the stability of our civilization.

And in terms of our spiritual and intellectual lives there are the works of Homer and Shakespeare, of Socrates, the Bible and Buddhism. There is the worth of the individual, and of the primacy of reason and science, which are founded upon the value and dignity of the individual. There is philosophy, poetry and music. There is the idea of cultural relativity, which forms the basis for peace (when it exists) between radically different cultures.

And many of these achievements involved arduous effort and heroic sacrifice. A history of individualism would certainly include a chapter on Luther, who concluded his defense against the charge of heresy with: Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott hilft mir. (“Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me.”) Needless to say, he was looking death in the face.

Many of our political institutions are practically written in blood, forced through by people of almost supernatural self-confidence. As Washington said, dismissing the offer of a pardon from King George, “Those who have done no wrong require no pardon.” And yet as he said that, he too could feel the rope around his neck.

In view of this glorious history, who could be anything other than conservative? We see that the great minds of the past have even embedded the possibility for change in their enduring gifts to us: science and democracy and the value of the individual all imply continuing innovation.

But modern American “conservatives” concern themselves with little of the above. They are conservative mostly in respect to the current American class system, which dates back to Reagan’s time, to the end of the Cold War. This class structure has one defining feature: that the gap between rich and poor must always increase, despite any other consideration. Neither nationalism nor Christianity nor laissez faire capitalism have any influence on this aggressive class ideology; indeed they are all subordinate and expendable. The rich must always grow richer more rapidly than the overall economy, which implies that the other classes must grow relatively poorer, whatever the moral and political hazard.

This is what modern “conservatives” wish to conserve—billionaire capitalism, a capitalism designed to produce billionaires and little else.

You might argue that the current class structure rests on the right to property, and doesn’t property qualify as one of the achievements of past which we should conserve? And I agree that property is one of those achievements—but we may differ on the definition and history of property. For property is not what it once was. In the time of Rollo, Duke of Normandy, the land Rollo was granted by the King of France was not guaranteed. Rollo had to fight all comers keep it, and if he couldn’t, the King was under no obligation to send troops to help out. The King, after all, had little interest in propping up weak vassals. But over centuries we evolved a different system. Unlike Rollo, if someone tries to steal my home I do not fight them; in fact this would be an unnecessary and dangerous complication. Instead I go to the law, and the law will evict and punish the thieves, no doubt with many frustrating delays and expenses. Still, this is a better system by far than Rollo faced.

Property today (and for many centuries heretofore) is a social system. I pay taxes (in this case, mostly to educate the next generation), and in return society guarantees my ownership of this home. In theory my obligations may also include personal service, for example on a jury.  I must also obey zoning laws and seek permits before modifying my property; even a new furnace requires an inspection, and a new roof requires a building permit. My sprinkler system must have a proper anti-siphon valve, and if that valve fails, I am required by law to replace it. Property today is always social, always legally defined, always constrained—but it is also quite secure. The days of Rollo seizing or holding property by the strength of his right arm are gone.

And if Rollo himself had preferred absolute property rights he wouldn’t have paid fealty to the King of France and accepted a title of nobility from him, not to mention converting to Christianity and learning to speak French. Rollo may have appreciated the Biblical insight that “those who live by the sword die by the sword,” and however effective Rollo and his men were in battle, they couldn’t fight all of France indefinitely. The King needed men to defend the mouth of the Seine against Vikings, and Rollo—himself a Viking—seemed like a good candidate if he were willing, and he was. So—far short of the guarantee to property we have today—Rollo and the King of France forged a social definition of Normandy as property. And despite squabbles over border areas, this arrangement generally worked. No Vikings sailed up the Seine to attack Paris after Rollo became Duke, and the King never attempted to have Rollo assassinated. Whatever doubts and frustrations the King and Rollo may have had about this arrangement did not rise to notice in the historical record. In fact it seems that both were relatively satisfied.

So the “property” of right-wing vision—where property is guaranteed by magical means, or by the personal charisma of the very wealthy, or by sheer “obviousness”—is not grounded in reality. Without the force of law, no billionaire would keep his assets until dawn. There is a symbiotic relationship between society and the property owner. Property is always social, and the obligations of the property holder can change.

The only question is, what obligations shall we impose on billionaire capitalism, so that we can restore democracy and prosperity for all? Our civilization has defined property in a way that makes this question not only possible but inevitable.