At first blush, the conservatism I will delineate here will seem like a capitulation to liberalism’s tendency toward governmental creep. The modifier “responsible” – as is the case with most modifiers of conservative philosophy – appears to moderate conservatism and thus pull it toward the left. Observers of political ideology, however, have long observed that the classification of individual points of view into “left” or “right” is often arbitrary and not driven by philosophical demands. This ideological vacuum is often filled in by provincial political considerations, leading to a pragmatic but unprincipled policy platform for the conservative movement. This cheapens the ideology’s philosophical foundations and further strengthens voter disaffection with ideology. The mantra that “I am not a conservative and I am not a liberal” is beginning to be as common as “I am not a Republican or a Democrat.” Why? Because we are losing sight of the ideological boundaries. We no longer know what it means to be a conservative.

I begin with a simple assumption: conservatism’s essential feature is responsibility. I will focus here on one connection between responsibility and conservatism: the field of government finance.

Government will exist. The conservative grants this. Why will it exist? Because societies require order. This is as far as many conservatives wish to go, seeing in any additional government functions a usurpation of the rights of men. That this has often proven to be prescient, I will not question. I do, however, argue that conservatism need not oppose government institutions that stand outside the sphere of domestic tranquility and securing the nation from foreign invasion. It is possible, in fact, for conservatism to support a social safety net. It is, furthermore, possible for this safety net to have a minimal impact on economic freedom even while it leads to higher taxation.

One example can illustrate this simple principle: welfare as a money grant that is free of concomitant responsibility must be replaced by welfare that requires contributions from the individual receiving aid. In this welfare model, the individual who needs assistance is in effect taking out a loan. Repayment is required, thus establishing the individual as a responsible party and not one that is merely receiving a gift.

Over the next several months I will elaborate on this model — in welfare and in other examples — in the hopes that it can be made philosophically coherent as well as cogent. Placing responsibility at the center of conservatism will, I shall argue, have the capacity to unify seemingly discordant factions within the movement.