Kristol, Sullivan Debate Conservatism, virtue at KSG

Conservative writers Andrew Sullivan and William Kristol '73 debated the nature of conservatism and its relation to virtue in a debate last night at the ARCO Forum.

The panel, which drew an audience of over 1.30 to the Kennedy School of Government (KSG), had been co-sponsored by the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Supporters' Alliance, but the organization withdrew its support due to the participation of moderator Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53.

Sullivan, a columnist for the New Republic, took the position that the modern American right has strayed from basic conservative principals, while Kristol, editor and publisher of the Weekly Standard, debated the opposite side.

"Conservatism has traditionally been about setting limits on government power," Sullivan said in his opening remarks. "Recently the conservative movement has become rotten in terms of its own principles."

Sullivan said the shift in the values of self-styled conservatives has been particularly noticeable in three areas: the recent impeachment crisis and the conflicts over abortion and homosexuality.

"I believe in a conservatism that can embrace all Americans against the problem of overweening government," said.

But in recent years, Sullivan said, conservatives have strayed from their first principles. Instead of protecting the liberties of American citizens, the movement has become "a religious movement for changing people's beliefs about some of the most fundamental things imaginable."

In his reply, Kristol disputed the idea that traditional conservatism steers clear of moral judgments.

"Conservatism was never just about limiting government," he said. "I believe that amoralism is more of a threat to this country than moralism."

Kristol also said he believes change will have to occur incrementally.

"Some things will have to be changed through persuasion, others through a combination of persuasion and law," he said.

For example, he said, he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion as a "matter of principle," although he prefers returning the decision to the states.

[Sullivan] is disingenuous in saying the tradition of American conservatism is limited to the narrow field he says it is," Kristol said.

He said that Sullivan's support of same-sex marriage rights proceeds from moral principles.

"It's hard to tell the other side that they can't make arguments based on first principles and on morals," he said.

"There is too little morality in public A-1

life...The conservative task is theremoralizing of society," he said.

Sullivan responded by denying the charge thathe entirely discounted the place of morality inthe political discourse.

"Of course I'm not saying morality shouldn'thave any place in the public realm," Sullivansaid.

"What I'm talking about is moral argument froma very sectarian, narrow position, and theextremity of the methods used to advance it," headded.

Students said they were impressed by thevigorous debate, which brought out tensions withinthe conservative movement.

"They did a good job in exploring the tensionswithin modern conservatism," said Jeffrey A.Letalien '01.

"We have strong poles to liberty and virtue,and [Sullivan and Kristol] brought those tensionsout," Letalien added.

Justin A. Barkley '02 said he thought thedebate was more interesting than at many similarevents, although he felt Kristol did not presenthis case as well as he could have.

After the event, Mansfield said conservativedebate is rare at Harvard because the"left-liberalism" that he believes prevails oncampus means that relatively few conservatives areinvited to speak.

"Here are two conservatives who provoke eachother--and the rest of the audience," he said

life...The conservative task is theremoralizing of society," he said.

Sullivan responded by denying the charge thathe entirely discounted the place of morality inthe political discourse.

"Of course I'm not saying morality shouldn'thave any place in the public realm," Sullivansaid.

"What I'm talking about is moral argument froma very sectarian, narrow position, and theextremity of the methods used to advance it," headded.

Students said they were impressed by thevigorous debate, which brought out tensions withinthe conservative movement.

"They did a good job in exploring the tensionswithin modern conservatism," said Jeffrey A.Letalien '01.

"We have strong poles to liberty and virtue,and [Sullivan and Kristol] brought those tensionsout," Letalien added.

Justin A. Barkley '02 said he thought thedebate was more interesting than at many similarevents, although he felt Kristol did not presenthis case as well as he could have.

After the event, Mansfield said conservativedebate is rare at Harvard because the"left-liberalism" that he believes prevails oncampus means that relatively few conservatives areinvited to speak.

"Here are two conservatives who provoke eachother--and the rest of the audience," he said