Modern Conservatism = Rightwing Progressivism?
By Anthony Gregory • Monday April 2, 2012 11:08 AM PDT • 9 Comments
Mary’s post perfectly exposes the key problem with these progressives. No objective moral standards. No basic respect in human dignity.
One thing that troubles me about the political climate is just how extensive this moral bankruptcy is. Glenn Beck did a service in demonstrating the collectivist ethical situationalism of progressives to a whole generation of fans. Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen under a spell of modern conservatism that is itself simply another flavor of progressivism, and at times a particularly nasty one.
On the health care debate before the Supreme Court, the liberal justices during oral argument sounded much more dedicated to the malleable nature of the law and moral standards. Yet another case before the Supreme Court has shown just how bad the other “side” can be when it comes to a different set of political questions. As the New York Times reports:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.
Consider that horror. One of the most liberal justices pointed out that such searches were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” that should not be legitimized so broadly. But every single so-called conservative on the bench—Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and swing-voter Kennedy—voted to uphold this complete evisceration of basic human dignity even when law enforcement has no particular reason to suspect anything illegal will be found and no one has been proven to have committed a crime.
This only serves to remind us that there are no good justices on the Supreme Court. There are those who believe the national government has unlimited power to regulate the economy—which is to say our very lives—and there are those who believe that in the name of domestic and foreign security, there are no limits on state power in the most intimate and personal of areas: our rights not to be strip-searched, our rights not to have our property ransacked, our rights not to be detained indefinitely at the whim of the president. While Kennedy has been at times better than either the conservatives or liberals on the Court, his vote on Kelo, upholding eminent domain for the sole purpose of expanding the corporate state, and Raich, upholding the federal government’s right to jail sick people who used medicine legal under state law, remind us that he too often sides with collectivist violence against the individual without any principled hesitation at all.
The Court is perhaps an interesting proxy for the political spectrum, since it features modern liberalism and modern conservatism at its most thoughtful and sophisticated. It also proves that progressivism has won the day across most of that spectrum.
Conservatives often cheer on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt—a progressive if ever there was one—and New Dealers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. They also defend a leviathan different from that envisioned by the progressive left more as a matter of degree than of kind. On economics, all too many conservatives have embraced the national welfare state, and although they are still more attuned to traditional limits on state power in this arena, they are often worse than the other side when it comes to policing and warfare issues. All in all, both wings of the modern spectrum have been different flavors of the progressive ideology that completely conquered the Republican Party a century ago, and then overtook the Democrats and modern liberalism as well. Many of the features of “conservatism” from the Cold War to George W. Bush—militarism, national statism, welfare statism with paternalistic garb, police statism, anti-immigration sentiment, cozying up to big business while expanding the regulatory state—have clear origins in the progressive presidencies of Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and even Woodrow Wilson. Thus I find the question as to whether Bush was a conservative or a progressive to be a trick question. He was both.
This only bolsters the point Mary makes at the end of her blog. Because when the rightwing progressives recapture government, we can hardly expect them to be any better than the progressive leftwingers who now run the show.
Tags: American History, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Conservatism, Corporatism, Criminal Justice, Culture, Nanny State, Nationalism, Natural Law, Peace, Personal Liberty, Philosophy, Police, Progressivism, War ![]()




















I have no problem with this decision when its context is properly represented. I do not think the author of this piece accurately depicts the decision. The court specifically ruled in the context of prisoners released into general population. If you had ever been incarcerated you would not want to serve time in a jail or prison with few strip searches. My military physical was more intrusive than the description of the search in this case.
Dave Thomas | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply
Instead of the term “Modern Conservatism”, I would have much preferred that Mr. Gregory had used “Neoconservatism.”
Neoconservatism is superbly analyzed (nay, exposed) in this book: Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea.
The thesis of the book is presented in articles here and here.
Also, a 17-minute radio interview with one of the authors is here.
Porkulus | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply
Dave Thomas, I believe you are mistaken. The case concerns jail, not prison. It potentially applies to more than ten million Americans a year. Ten states ban such searches, they are not federal policy, and as the ABA notes, they are banned by international human rights treaties. It is irrelevant if a military physical is more intrusive—people join the military voluntarily, initially at least. Soldiers are also exposed to risky situations that would be totally inappropriate to expose pre-trial suspects to. If they can’t make jail safe without these searches, they are obviously arresting far, far too many people. This case sprung from the incident described in the article. Everyone who values human liberty and dignity should be disgusted:
“The case decided Monday, Florence v. County of Burlington, No. 10-945, arose from the arrest of Albert W. Florence in New Jersey in 2005. Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW when a state trooper pulled his wife, April, over for speeding. A records search revealed an outstanding warrant for Mr. Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine. (The information was wrong; the fine had been paid.)
“Mr. Florence was held for a week in jails in Burlington and Essex Counties, and he was strip-searched in each. There is some dispute about the details, but general agreement that he was made to stand naked in front of a guard who required him to move intimate parts of his body. The guards did not touch him.”
Even though it was an arrest over a minor violation that he didn’t commit, the Court upheld the strip search. This is outrageous.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply
A study of the history of the supreme court is well worth the effort, if for nothing more than to see how frequently the court changed its opinions along with its membership. Excellent article.
richard | Apr 3, 2012 | Reply
I don’t think it’s just neoconservatives who embrace statism. Neocons are a particular strain of conservative, typically comprising former leftists and former Marxists of various types. They are a small but influential minority of the conservative movement, represented by Weekly Standard. But the National Review crowd is also statist, although they are more conservative than neoconservative. What I call modern conservatism predates the neocon movement—it goes back to the 1950s. This movement, enamored of the national security state, tolerant of the welfare state and expansive law enforcement, is collectivist, even though it is not all neocon. Not all of the five Supreme Court justices criticized above are neocons. Rick Santorum is not a neocon. Ronald Reagan was not a neocon. But these are all examples of men who embrace the New Deal, a paternalistic nanny state, violations of civil liberties, and perpetual war.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 4, 2012 | Reply
Anthony, can you provide a critique of the reasoning of the Court?
Largo | Apr 7, 2012 | Reply
I have to disagree, neoconservative does date all the way back to the 1940s. I find it quite telling that we have these so called conservatives acting like they care about liberties like these searches and things like voter ID. You would think ANY state intervention outside the outline of the Constitution would be wrong
Jeff K | Apr 9, 2012 | Reply