Inflection Points for Movement Conservatism: Part 3 – Cherishing the Rule of Law

Conservatives don't challenge processes and undermine institutions when things don't go how they want.

Image uploaded from picryl.com.

In Part 2 of this series, I argued that failure, or refusal, to appreciate the constitutional propriety of Dobbs v. Jackson places a person outside the conservative project broadly understood. The summary of this argument is that conservatives respect and cherish the rule of law, that the Supreme Court usurped the rule of law by taking an extra-constitutional power unto itself in deciding Roe v. Wade, and that the Supreme Court correctly, if after far too long a period of time, reversed itself and returned things to proper order. 

It is from this core aspect of the conservative mindset, honoring the rule of law, that I discuss the final inflection point as part of this series. While I directed Part 2 at a much smaller portion of self-proclaimed conservatives, Part 3 must necessarily wrestle with a sizable faction (if not a shocking plurality) of those who think of themselves as conservative. 

A dedication to the rule of law necessarily demands a healthy level of proceduralism. As touched on in part 2, conservatives are not consequentialists. A Republic, especially a constitutional one, is essentially a series of overlapping and underlying processes whose good health relies on a commitment to the efficacy and inviolable nature of those processes. In other words, regardless of the result, a conservative is bound to respect it as legitimate so long as the proper process was followed. Unfounded challenges to the efficacy of those processes degrade the very foundation of a republic, invites failing public trust in the mechanisms of government, and can set in motion the dissolution of even the most robust political union. 

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. Without such commitment and steadfast determination to uphold the rule of law, a person can scarcely be considered a conservative of any stripe. 

Such an activist whose motivation is to call into question the legitimacy of established processes, the efficacy of long-standing institutions, or who challenges all results and occurrences counter to desired outcomes as false, as fake, and as evil can be described variously as a revolutionary, a reactionary, a populist, a discontent, a regressive, a radical, or a subversive. A far cry from a conservative. 

So, let’s be specific to the time at hand.  

I do not stand with those who felt Donald Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election in the court were assaults upon the norms of our elections. Court challenges are part of the proper processes of our government, and the state courts are the right and proper place to bring up the questions of election integrity. In fact, such challenges serve to shore up the integrity of any given state’s elections. Nor do I consider those who participated in the lawful processes of shoring up election integrity as guilty of any kind of subversion. 

However, when the proper processes ran their course, the Electoral College was chosen, and the ballots were cast, the question came to an end. And, with a recent report issued by prominent conservative intellectuals, the case is quite clear that the 2020 election was “Lost Not Stolen.”

The reality, no matter how difficult to face by so many erstwhile conservatives, is that the election fraud narrative amounts to little more than a vanity project by a former President who lost to Joe Biden (of all people). The truth is that this self-serving narrative is damaging the very foundation of movement conservatism. This is not only because it redirects tremendous amounts of energy and money away from the issues that matter today (not two years ago) but because it’s leading large swathes of Americans who continue to view themselves as conservative to unwittingly abandon the conservative course and mindset. 

Instead of activists, voters, writers, and public intellectuals committed to conserving and renewing the values of the American Republic, I see angry hordes of discontented victims who draw from every setback and inconvenient outcome a nefarious scheme against them. I see emotions, passions, and fears risen to such a fever pitch that they lash out at the very institutions and processes of republican government they claim to cherish (Jan. 6th being but the most punctuated example). 

As the aforementioned report charges, “repetition of these false charges [of election fraud] causes real harm to the basic foundations of the country.” And as one of the writers, the venerable Judge Thomas B. Griffith, asserted in an opinion piece for Deseret News: 

“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. Attacking our election system as corrupt is not only inaccurate, but it breeds distrust in our democracy. Asserting allegations of fraud in the 2020 presidential election system without evidence undermines the values that undergird conservatism.” 

If allegations of fraud were the only concerning challenges to the rule of law coming from those who still consider themselves conservative, it would be bad enough. But the calls for violence and irresponsible challenges to legitimate authority did not end on Jan. 6th. Especially in the wake of the FBI search-and-seizure at Mar-a-Lago, death threats, calls to violence, and twisted hopes for civil war are on the rise among many right-wing agitators. 

Enough is enough. While no one can single-handily reel in the irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric and actions of such a loud and boisterous faction, I nevertheless feel compelled to draw the line inasmuch as I can.

If you have so abandoned your commitment to the rule of law that you can no longer see the difference between saving the republic and destroying it, then you have come to operate beyond the bounds of movement conservatism. Call yourself a Trumpist if you like, or MAGA, or whatever epithet excites your passions to the point of putting a political personality and his pernicious narratives and agenda over the principles you once held. But stop calling yourself conservative, because you have abandoned the project of conserving and renewing the American Republic.