Once upon a time, not all that long ago, the word “conservative” in a political context meant something.
The heart of that meaning was in the first two syllables. Conservatives adhered to a set of principles, values that they felt were to be preserved if civilization was to survive and prosper.
They protected and bolstered institutions because they believed strong institutions established the sort of orderly society that could nurture and sustain liberty and human dignity. They revered the rule of law because they thought obedience to the law, even when a specific law might be misguided, separated humanity from savagery. They honored the past because they believed it was impossible to chart a route forward without knowing the path trod to get to the present.
They conserved because they believed that these principles were of value.
The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the MAGA movement’s clueless response to the visit and lecture by King Charles III, among other developments, make it difficult to know what conservatism these days is.
At least with this Supreme Court and in Donald Trump’s America.
Pundits and political observers have described the king’s speech to Congress as a subtle rebuke to Trump and Republicans.
Charles’ address was many things, but subtle was not one of them. Those observers were confused because he cloaked his criticisms with self-deprecating humor, but his barbs were well-aimed and well-delivered.
His was a classically conservative argument. He contended that treaties matter, that relationships matter, that institutions matter and that keeping one’s word matters.
He also argued, in what once would have been a shocking about-face for a monarch holding a throne once believed to be divinely established that executive authority unchecked by legislative and judicial oversight was something to be both feared and distrusted.
Because he delivered his lecture with a smile on his face and with an air of becoming modesty, most of his listeners in the president’s camp missed or failed to understand his overarching point.
That point?
This administration and its allies are at best failing to protect and at worst betraying America’s legacy of constitutionally protected liberty.
That once would have been a conservative’s worst fear.
Which brings us to the Supreme Court.
The 6-3 decision to make it easier for states to dilute voting power for Blacks when it comes to electing members of the U.S. House of Representatives no longer should be considered a surprise.
There was a time when the precedents protecting the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have been considered impregnable, but that time is no more. This court has demonstrated again and again and again that it not only does not feel bound by precedent, but that it is often actively hostile to the idea that precedents should be honored.
The six right-wing justices — given their animosity to honoring established law, they cannot be called “conservative” without stretching the word’s definition beyond reason — .have overturned decades of constitutional jurisprudence regarding reproductive rights, affirmative action and now voting rights.
In each case, they voted to strip away rights and legal protections from historically disadvantaged groups of citizens. In doing so, this Supreme Court has made clear that it no longer feels obligated to defend the autonomy of citizens but instead feels compelled to advance and expand the power of the state, particularly the executive branch.
The Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular are minority documents.
By that, I mean that they serve to protect the rights of those citizens who are in the minority and therefore out of power by taking key decisions — how or whether to worship, what to say, what to think — out of the hands of government.
Those who are in power don’t need those protections because they are in power. Our constitutional protections were designed to keep might from defining right.
The enlightened wisdom of our system — which our judicial branch is supposed to protect — is that we all should have an interest in preserving minority rights because we are all likely, at one time or another, to be in the minority.
That is why principled conservatives long were zealous in their defense of the Bill of Rights and in other protections afforded individuals, particularly those the courts had enshrined over decades.
But that was when we had true conservatives.
Not now.