Time for a religious and conservative breakout in the Philippines

What conservatism really stands for is freedom in the best sense of the word — that includes mastery of internal compulsions to attain objectives in line with human dignity.

As discussed last week, whatever 2016 was, it revealed the shallowness of the liberal progressive position: of a superficial idea of freedom based merely on the absence of external restriction, of tolerance but only for the ideas that one agrees with, and rights for all so long as it is a) based on that progressive idea of “freedom,” and b) to be exercised only by those acquiescing to the liberal agenda.

The foregoing resulted in 2016 politically, albeit surprisingly, ending on a tone of utter victory for American religious and conservative advocates.

Nevertheless, a disconcerting note and this was pointed out by the National Review’s David French:

Politically, it may be true that progressives “are the weakest they’ve been in generations. But in that same period, whose cultural values have most advanced? The secular Left has taken a sledgehammer to God, family, and country — the pillars of our national culture — and Hollywood has led the way.” (“Meryl Streep’s Speech Is Why the Left Wins,” National Review, David French, 9 January 2017)

There is, quite clearly, a huge amount of work to be done.

While Donald Trump may have browbeaten political correctness down, thus giving an opening for religious values to retake political prominence, the measures needed to ensure a fundamental shift in people’s mind-sets are still far from being even thought through.

And there are huge differences between religious groups here in the Philippines from their US counterparts that need bearing in mind.

One has to do with the US religious advocates’ profound analytical knowledge of the political, constitutional, and historical grounds for their positions, a capability the necessity of which the local counterparts hasn’t grasped.

Another is age and professional background. The religious freedom advocacy in the US has a young, hyperarticulate, intellectually quick, and academically accomplished bench: from Ryan Anderson to Helen Alvare to the lawyers of the Becket Fund. Then there are Maggie Gallagher, Tony Esolen, Robert George, and Scott Hahn.

That the local religious freedom advocacy lacks such characteristics have led to organizational problems, as well as — and this the more significant concern — the refusal to put the best or most capable persons forward to represent its public policy positions.

The foregoing defects are — quite admirably — not prevalent within the comparatively disciplined liberal progressive advocates.

This says more about the local religious freedom advocacy than anything. Alain De Botton’s ponderings (Machiavelli’s Advice for Nice Guys) is thusly relevant: “We need to learn lessons from an unexpected source: those we temperamentally most despise. They have the most to teach us about how to bring about the reality we yearn for — but that they are fighting against. We need weapons of similar grade steel to theirs.”

Unfortunately, the religious advocacy seems more intent (and my apologies for the mixed metaphors) in keeping its turf and preaching to the choir rather than grabbing hearts and minds.

But, to quote De Botton, “the point is to change the world for the better, not reside in the quiet comfort of good intentions and a warm heart.”

And this is important because for the recent past and definitely in the years to come, the stakes are fundamentally high: the preservation of the traditional family and marriage, and respect for human dignity from conception until death.

With the foregoing comes the proper moral and character formation of the young and the nation’s adherence to values that keep it a vibrant and healthy society; from which flows the nation’s productivity and economic development (rather than welfare and contraceptive programs that promotes a self-entitlement and self- indulgent mentality, and bloated governmental budgets), observance of the rule of law and democratic processes (emphasizing personal accountability, while addressing the roots of criminality), protection of contract and property rights ( encouraging self- respect for every citizenry), national security and the upholding of singular sovereignty, and on and on.

Ultimately, we must have a Philippine conservative movement (which for now practically does not exist) that can serve as a more coherent and unifying political alternative to religious movements.

This would require an activism by many young people, worldly in view, intellectually disciplined, and possessed of deep commitment. There must also be a profound appreciation and openness to the truths of Philippine history.

And efforts must be made to inform people what exactly conservatism means, which unfortunately has the image of a bunch of grumpy old people bitterly saying “no” to everything (including change).

Because what conservatism really stands for is “freedom.” Freedom in the best sense of the word: including mastery of internal compulsions to attain objectives in line with human dignity.

Equally important: love for “truth,” including the belief that there is such a thing, that there is something beyond mere competing narratives, and that truth can be attained through the use of one’s intellect.

And no conservative is against change. But change must be done democratically and not by the dictates of government.

More about conservatism in succeeding columns.