Unnecessary Mediocrity

Throughout the last year or two there has been a lot of talk about "change" in US politics. Indeed, a lot of change has recently been brought about and more is promised. In the collage of issues currently in the queue for change there is a real risk of getting bogged down in issue specific details and being overwhelmed by the volume of arguments. Conversations between conservatives contain an increasing amount of issue-by-issue introspection regarding how to justify their resistance to change. This introspection highlights the need to be focused on persistent core values rather than transient issues.

Exceptionalism is a core tenet of conservatism. Unfortunately, like a lot of conservative principles, the philosophy that the best should be exalted above the mediocre is one that conservatives have done a poor job defending in recent years. In our society's obsession with equal treatment, or being fair, the value of the exceptional has consistently been diluted. Even among conservatives, this societal pressure has resulted in discomfort when confronted with a conflict between a solution that is "best" and a solution that is "fair". To accept the mediocre over the exceptional in the name of fairness is contrary to conservative principle.

It is also a core belief of conservatism that change should be resisted. This does not mean that change is to be resisted arbitrarily, merely that change must be justified before it is embraced. The conservative recognizes that change is much more difficult to undo than it is to implement and not something to be taken lightly. Asserting that a case against change has not been made does not provide sufficient justification for the conservative to abandon the status-quo. Conservatives frequently fall into the trap of trying to justify why something should not be changed when the onus should lie completely with those advocating the change. Conservatives all too often find themselves drawn into the defense of tradition rather than demanding that the proponents of change justify their demands.

These two core conservative values are essential parts of any analysis of an argument for change. When faced with a recommendation for change the conservative asks; "Is it best and is it necessary?". While there may be some subjectivity in the answers to these questions, the conservative should oppose the call for any change that is not both necessary and superior to the status-quo. This process removes the issue dependency from the debate and divorces the discussion from the defense of tradition. All calls for change must pass these two gate keeping conservative principles and the same logical process is evenly applied regardless of the issue.

Our history is full of examples of non-constructive change. How many times have we seen changes in the education system that could not have passed the "better and necessary" test? The call for comprehensive immigration reform is a current debate that these principles should be applied to in conservative arguments. Gay marriage is an issue that currently seems to cause a lot of confusion among conservatives as they struggle to make arguments for the status-quo. If expanding the definition of marriage to include gay marriage can be proven by the advocates to be 'best and necessary' for society then the 'change' from tradition can be justified to the conservative. If it can not be proven to be best and necessary for society then the conservative is not compelled to agree to change tradition. Confusion is minimized when the focus is on applying principles to the issues rather than on the issues themselves.

The case for change must be made and won by those demanding change. The conservative's role in the debate is to challenge the case for change and stand firm against unnecessary mediocrity.