Freethinking Conservatives: Not a Contradiction (original) (raw)

S. T. Joshi argued in these pages recently (FI October/November 2022) that freethinkers—a group he defined as atheists, agnostics, secularists, and “others”—cannot “viably” maintain a politically conservative stance. I disagree. Moreover, I am motivated to make my disagreement public because Joshi’s stance—in which he is far from alone—is harmful to freethought, humanism, and democracy.

To begin, atheism and agnosticism, which are beliefs about the existence of God, do not logically commit one to any political position. Joshi stresses the importance of supporting the “democratic process.” I agree this is an important value. But left-wing atheists such as Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot and their followers, have been among the most serious violators of the democratic process. They established ruthless dictatorships; they slaughtered tens of millions and deprived all who had the misfortune of living under their rule of basic human rights. Were they not authentic atheists? (Weirdly, Joshi at one point groups Xi Jinping along with some right-wing authoritarians he disparages. Last I checked, Xi was an atheist and head of the Chinese Communist Party.)

I imagine Joshi might respond that he is confining his argument to the current political situation in the United States, from which he draws most of his examples of indefensible political positions. Moreover, although he does not state this explicitly, he appears to be arguing that freethinkers who base their policy positions on reason and evidence cannot accept conservative political positions. He expresses his disgust at those who make the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Granted, it is mostly Republicans who hold this view, but it is also true that many Republicans—conservative Republicans—accept the 2020 election results as legitimate. Being a conservative does not necessarily imply either lack of respect for the democratic process or a predisposition to accept factually unsupported claims. (And, by the way, many ridiculous conspiracy theories in the past had mostly left-wing adherents, e.g., the claims that the CIA assassinated John F. Kennedy and the government created HIV to kill off gays.)

One major flaw in Joshi’s argument is that he is arguing mostly against Trumpism, not conservatism. Granted, Trump captured the Republican Party for a while, and those conservatives who found him unfit for the job then had the choice of refusing to support him, thereby splitting the party, or biting their tongues and going along with him. Most chose the latter alternative. Cynical, sure. But cynical political calculations are a bipartisan feature. Think of all the Democratic money that flowed to support the most radical right-wingers in Republican primaries in 2022 to gain an advantage for Democrats in the general election. Joshi rightfully lambastes Doug Mastriano, the fundie crazy who was the failed Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania. But Mastriano prevailed over more moderate candidates in the Republican primary thanks to Democratic financial support. If Republicans are in an “inexorable lurch toward theocracy and autocracy” as Joshi alleges, Democratic strategists have certainly helped push them along.

Let us leave Trumpism aside and consider some political positions usually associated with conservatives:

Are all these conservative positions so unreasonable, so devoid of supporting evidence, that “freethinkers” could not possibly hold them absent some pathological disconnect in their mental processing? Note, I am not asking whether freethinkers should agree with these positions but rather whether freethinkers must find them so inherently unreasonable that it is pointless to even consider them, that they are “intellectually bankrupt” to use Joshi’s characterization of conservative viewpoints. That is not how I see them.

Conservative columnist George Will, who in 2014 told Real Clear Politics, “I’m an atheist.
An agnostic is someone who is not sure; I’m pretty sure. I see no evidence of God.” Editorial credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com.

Would Joshi’s argument have been more plausible if instead of claiming “freethinkers” cannot be conservative he had contended that “humanists” cannot be conservatives? I don’t think so. Granted, humanists have traditionally supported individual autonomy, so, for example, humanists have favored gay, lesbian, and transgender rights. Adults should be free to live how they want to live and express their sexual and gender identity as they deem appropriate, provided it does not harm others. And it is true that over the years there has been more resistance to same-sex marriage from conservatives than from the left side of the political spectrum. However, two observations: one, thirty years ago both Republicans and Democrats opposed same-sex marriage, and, two, the bill pending in Congress as of the end of 2022 that would codify same-sex marriage has the support of at least a dozen Republicans.

Regarding economic issues, as opposed to human rights issues, there is a range of opinions among humanists. I do not understand how humanists could be communists or fascists, but they could be socialists or libertarians or anything in between, including fiscal conservatives. Provided there is protection for fundamental human freedoms, humanism is compatible with different economic systems.

And this brings me to a serious concern presented by Joshi’s denunciation of conservatives. His declaration that conservatives are anathema reinforces the disturbing trend toward polarization in American politics and cultural life. You’re either in my camp on all issues or you’re the enemy, someone not worth engaging in discussion. This divisiveness is not useful for the democratic process that Joshi rightly cherishes.

Polarization also can blind one to faults in one’s political allies. In one passage in his essay, Joshi makes a classic straw-man argument, contending that conservatives’ complaints about “cancel culture” are really just complaints about being criticized, and freedom of speech is not equivalent to freedom from criticism. Although I do not listen to Fox News on a regular basis, to my knowledge no conservative has whined about being “criticized.” Rather, some have quite rightly lamented the fact that insistence on ideological conformity has resulted in conservatives being de-platformed from various venues. Moreover, some employees have lost their jobs because they have voiced disagreement with corporate directives on “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” One very disturbing development recently is the announcement by a scientific journal, Nature Human Behavior, that it would not publish articles that could be “perceived to undermine” the “dignity” of a “human group” (Nature Human Behavior 6: 1029–1031). In other words, identity politics is now circumscribing scientific research. The identity left is proving to be as enthusiastic about silencing dissenting voices as the authoritarian right has been, and refusing to acknowledge this reality does not make one a freethinker; rather, it shows that one is an ideologue.

Humanism’s adversary is not conservatism. Its adversary is dogmatism of whatever stripe, right-wing or left-wing. Its adversary is the mindset that considers all opposing views blasphemous and heretical. Its adversary is the censorship of speech deemed “offensive.” If humanists excommunicate conservatives and reduce themselves to being an adjunct to the left wing of the Democratic Party, such a step would not only be harmful to the future of humanism but a betrayal of humanism’s core values.

Ronald A. Lindsay

Ronald A. Lindsay is the former president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, recent interim general counsel for CFI, and editor of Free Inquiry magazine.