Past Mistakes and Present Credibility

It is striking how past errors affect present credibility, lingering for decades. William Voegeli illustrates this well with his Claremont Institute article, "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement" (accessed via the WSJ). He follows the conservative movement and particularly, the late founder of National Review, William Buckley, Jr., in his interactions (or lack thereof) with the civil rights movement. Reading it with an eye to my own fallibility, I was humbled and affected with just how much more significant a leader's failures are than his successes.

The conservative movement and the civil rights movement are not inherently in opposition. Buckley frequently and publicly expressed hope for racial equality. However, the key tenet of modern conservatism is favor for small government and states' rights over centralized government. "It was within this framework that National Review conservatism addressed the issues raised by the civil rights movement. Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged 'wholly defensible' and 'wholly commendable.'"

However, it was also from these convictions that they opposed any and all federal legislation to achieve equality across the races, because this appealed to an unconstitutional "Big Government." In the 1950s and 60s, the means could not excuse the ends, no matter how appalling the situation. Clearly, they were wrong. No amount of lipservice by Buckley and friends could place them on the right side.

Viewed from 2008, the movement Buckley led was detached from the civil rights struggle because conservatives, despite frequent and apparently sincere expressions of hope for racial harmony, rarely viewed the fight against pervasive, entrenched and episodically brutal racial discrimination as a question of great moral urgency. Conservatives were personally opposed to Jim Crow as liberals of a later generation insisted they were personally opposed to abortion [insightful comparison]. Making the opposition personal was a way to keep the states, in the case of abortion, or the nation, when it came to segregation, from making it governmental.

Present-day conservatives, thankfully, have come around. Buckley himself has expressed regret for his earlier position, agreeing that federal imposition was necessary at the time to effect change. But, in the world of ideas, the damage is done.

Since then, "conservatives have spent half a century trying to overcome the suspicion that they are indifferent to black Americans' legitimate demands, and indulgent toward people who are blatantly hostile to blacks." Further,

The constitutional principles at the heart of this project [states' rights, small government, etc.] were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously, they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives' even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Mr. Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

This perception colors all statements about affirmative action, welfare policy, taxation, etc. Much-too-late "acknowledgments that the suffering and national disgrace caused by segregation required stronger measures have not satisfied their opponents. Given the political advantages to liberals of conflating racism and conservatism, it's doubtful there is any degree of contrition they would find acceptable."

Errors in judgment have incredible effects on a movement's credibility, especially errors with moral import. The ramifications extend for decades, or at least until the other side makes an equally big blunder (remember, Andrew Jackson was a Democrat; Abraham Lincoln was a Republican).

Today's Christians constantly reckon with the church's past -- slavery in the SBC; Scopes' trial science in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. I still hear about the Crusades fought 900 years ago! When we seek to speak up on issues like biblical manhood/womanhood, sexuality, science and faith, we have to fight off red herrings and ad hominem arguements before we can get to the issue at hand. We have to explain that "this issue's different." "We haven't made a mistake this time."

Remember, we stand on the shoulders of giants -- imperfect giants whose occasional wobbles threaten to collapse us all. People will stand on your shoulders, too. Be careful and stand firm.