In a sense, this newsletter is an extension of a fellowship I founded and run. The first session of that fellowship’s third cohort starts tomorrow. It’s one of my favorite weeks of the year.
I’ve been re-reading the course packet (I moderate the discussions, so I need to be prepared!) and thinking anew about the intersection of governing and American conservatism.
A few years back, I decided that too little energy was being dedicated to developing the next generation of great right-of-center governing leaders. I believe that the practice of commenting on governing is very different than governing. The practice of researching governing is different than governing. The practices of polling, podcasting, and campaigning are different than governing.
So I started a fellowship to help people who are committed to careers in and around public service better understand how the principles of American conservatism can inform governing. The group reads a mountain of texts, and then we discuss over four days how the lessons can be applied to their current and future work. The goal of the program is NOT to tell people what to think or what positions to take on particular issues. It’s to help them understand the history and principles of American conservatism and decide for themselves what this can and should mean for public service today and tomorrow.
Before saying a bit about the fellowship’s first three sessions, a few thoughts on why I thought this type of program was needed right now:
America faces many challenges. But often it is not clear what the right policy interventions are. If fact, in some cases, policy might be the wrong intervention (i.e., maybe we should use non-governmental strategies). There are a host of family-related problems. Are those amenable to policy reforms? What do we do about “deaths of despair” and continued low labor-force participation rates? Which levels of government should engage in our K-12 and higher-education struggles? On which issues should we be comfortable with very different policy approaches (and outcomes) by state and local governments? On each matter, the principles of American conservatism can provide direction.
Many of us don’t want judges making policy. We want courts to defer to legislatures on such matters. Generally, those on the right want judges to understand and apply originalism and textualism because those methods are fair, transparent, and consistent with popular sovereignty and pluralism. But that means training lawyers and judges properly will be different than training those in the political branches: We should want our legislators to have clear, coherent views on policy matters. So podcasts, essays, conferences, and lectures from the point of view of lawyers and judges are important and interesting, but they are insufficient to improve governing.
Those engaged in public life seldom have time and space to think about first principles and the ideas sitting behind societal problems and policy. They are too busy doing the day-to-day work of governing. But if we don’t give them the opportunity to read and think about these things, they will be disproportionately shaped by the dominant conversation—one focused on political races, polling, partisanship, etc. We should want them to think about governing principles.
Many people in public life are uncomfortable with this era’s tribalism. They don’t want easy talking points; they want to think through tough issues and find solutions. Similarly, many people in public life who aren’t conservative across the board (or at all) want to better understand why right-of-center people take certain positions. In both cases, such public leaders could benefit from an opportunity to explore the American-conservative approach to thinking about individuals, community, liberty, the distribution of power, and so on.
During this first four-day seminar, we stay almost entirely away from contemporary politics. We start with several sessions on the most basic question: What is American conservatism? Russell Kirk is a great place to begin. He offers six principles of conservatism. This list helps organize future discussions (and can help policymakers think through just about any issue at any time). Kirk also helps explain how and why American (actually English and American) conservatism is different from other types. His extended celebration of Edmund Burke is also important because many other writers point to Burke.
We then discuss some recent history. George Nash’s work on post-WWII conservatism describes how a range of thinkers and political actors applied the concepts described by Kirk to contemporary issues. Since the foundation of conservatism is preserving the things that have enabled a society to succeed (and protecting those things from misguided reforms), it is instructive to see how previous generations understood which things needing protection and from whom. Matt Continetti’s more recent history helpfully demonstrates that America’s right always has different camps with somewhat different priorities and that different eras can elevate different strands of conservatism.
The last of the three opening sessions offer three different views of conservatism in America’s founding era. We read some Burke. His critique of the French Revolution was not only prescient (he saw how it would end); it also helps explain why America’s revolution succeeded and offers insights into institutions, tradition, change, prudence, and more. We read George Will’s more libertarian understanding of America’s founding (and his more libertarian understanding of the America that followed). Will’s rights-first approach lays the groundwork for future discussions about custom, solidarity, natural law and natural rights, majoritarianism, and more. Lastly, we read from an underappreciated history by David Lefer about an underappreciated group of American founders (like John Dickinson) who might be the true Anglo-American conservative pioneers (not Burke). Their actions have much to teach about judgment, leadership, and courage during revolutionary times.
In later sessions, we wrestle with giants like Tocqueville, Hayek, Nisbet, and James Scott. But those and other authors mean more if we appreciate the core features of American conservatism. Why are accumulated knowledge and practical wisdom essential? What are the risks of technocracy and scientism? Why should we respect longstanding institutions, precedent, and tradition? Why are pluralism, civil society, federalism, localism, and democracy important? Why are temperament and disposition key to conservatism?
And, of course, all of this relates directly to the work of governing. These types of discussions should enable us all to be more thoughtful, more effective public leaders and policymakers. They should help us better understand fights over the administrative state; the tension between traditional school districts and parental choice; why statism and community are at odds; the arguments made by NIMBYists and YIMBYists; why natural law and longstanding practice can be at odds; and so much more. In other words, if we discuss today’s key issues in terms of governing principles (instead of in terms of partisanship, survey data, attack ads, fundraising, resentment, friends, opponents…), we might improve the public square and generate better policies.
In short, if we want more smart, thoughtful, experienced, prudent people in positions of public leadership, we have to make the effort to develop them. One way to do that, is to give them an intellectual framework from which to work and the time and space to read and discuss.