This is why it should.
Posted on 01/18/2008 3:35:38 PM PST by K-oneTexas
Will Conservatism survive 2008? By George Shadroui
Conservatism is a big enough tent to include many differing views on specific issues, but there are overriding principles that bind conservatism as a political force.
If we are to believe the most recent polls, on Saturday voters in South Carolina, arguably the most conservative state in the nation, will be tusseling over John McCain or Mike Huckabee as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party.
There's only one problem: neither man is all that conservative say leading conservatives of our day.
Fred Thompson, a formidable man with a strong conservative record, has improved his chances but unless he can mobilize the 28 percent of voters who remain undecided, his campaign will be in grave danger. Romney and Giuliani will live to fight another day, but some conservatives argue neither of them are particularly conservative either.
To be specific, Rush Limbaugh suggests that nominating McCain or Huckabee would be a disaster for the Republicans and the conservative movement. Meanwhile, evangelicals don't like Giuliani or Romney, small government and pro-business conservatives aren't enthralled with Huckabee or McCain and Ann Coulter claims Thompson doesn't qualify because he refused to convict Clinton on impeachment charges (talk about narrow litmus tests). Duncan Hunter, well, he's building his fence down on the border while Ron Paul counts his money in Texas.
Let's start with this assumption — there is no definition of true conservatism that is easily annunciated, as any serious student of conservative history knows. Ronald Reagan was a conservative pragmatist. As a governor in California, he advocated law and order, but he also raised taxes, avoided confronting the conservative social agenda and took a reasonable middle ground on immigration. As president, he fought for lower taxes, a strong defense and federalism. He achieved the first two, and failed on the third.
Nevertheless, the principles he annunciated were enough to elect him twice in landslide victories and even his negotiations with the Soviet Union, for which he was criticized by many on the right, are now seen as a brilliant move that only a visionary could have managed.
Conservatism is a big enough tent to include many differing views on specific issues, but there are overriding principles that bind conservatism as a political force.
A healthy skepticism of government interventionism, particularly at the federal level
Why do I frame the issue this way. Because, first of all, a conservative might very well be an activist on the state or local level. Federalism is about delegating to state and local governments those responsibilities that Washington manages poorly: education, garbage, roads, etc. That Huckabee led on these issues and made citizens pay for them does not, in my mind, disqualify him as a conservative. What might disqualify him is taking that same activist approach to Washington.
Americans must pay for their services and demanding that they responsibily shoulder that burden is hardly liberalism. But suggesting that government can relieve the pain of every working American is hardly conservative, for this opens the door to endless government experimentation in the name of justice, jobs or any other problem a given citizen might have. Conservatism generally embraces reduced taxes and limited government activity because it is preferable to empower individuals and local communities to lead and rule themselves while allowing market forces, whenever possible, to determine economic outcomes. It is not a perfect system, but then conservatives don't believe in perfection, at least not in this life.
Faith in values rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition
What does this mean practically? After all, Jimmy Carter qualifies as a conservative based on this standard. However, when combined with other conservative principles we are led in another direction than liberal religious activists, who seek to utilize the state as an instrument of social engineering. A theistic tradition, however, to borrow Frank Meyer's word, does not mean there is an anti-abortion litmus test for conservatives except to this extent: abortion, in general, afflicts the fundamental value annunciated in Christian tradition and in the Constitution — the sanctity of life. A conservative might oppose abortion on moral grounds without demanding that it be criminalized or legislated totally out of existence. To oppose Roe versus Wade is not the same as demanding that millions of women be jailed because they terminate a pregancy prematurely. Conservatives would argue, however, that states and localities should have been allowed to manage the issue, including proscribing the practice as appropriate. We do not see abortion as an absolute right guaranteed in the Constitution.
An abiding respect for the Constitution
The Constitution is not a living document, but it is also not a document carved in stone. It can be amended and it leaves unanswered endless questions about how public policy should be handled. A conservative should embrace the Constitution and err on interpreting it as literally as possible, but surely there is room to debate even a literal reading. The right to bear arms doesn't mean we all get to own a nuclear missle, just as free speech doesn't give us a right to incite violence. Rights entail responsiblities and those who take these issues to extremes are not conservative, they are reactionary. Let us also not forget that even among conservatives there are stark differences about judicail philosophy. Robert Bork embraces original intent, Scalia textualism and author Mark Smith judicial activism on behalf of his personal brand of conservatism.
But surely conservatives are correct to resent courts that legislate against local prerogatives or seek to strip the public square of any vestige of religious faith. Nothing in the Constitution justifies such behavior, just as nothing in the Constitution prevents legislatures from regulating businesses that fail to respect the environment or their employees. In the interstitial regions of the law, reasonable people can interpret and disagree.
A healthy respect for a strong defense
There is one issue about which there is no debate: defense is the responsibility of the federal government. But supporting a strong defense doesn't mean a conservative has to support military adventurism. In fact, the tradition of conservatism historically is to resist the temptation to embroil our nation in the affairs of other nations. Ron Paul isn't wrong to question our foreign poliicy or our entanglements abroad, but it is troubling that he chooses to interpret that policy through the eyes of those who are declared enemies of the United States and its allies. A conservative might very well have opposed the war in Iraq and even Vietnam, but surely would not oppose an adequate defense or a willingness to use the military when circumstances require it. Vague, yes, but many on the hard left and even within mainstream liberalism no longer adhere to these basic principles, though it was nice to hear the Democratic candidates acknowledge that the military that protects us should be allowed to recruit on college campuses.
In Have You Ever Seen a Dream Walking, William F. Buckley Jr. mobilized a group of writers to set forth certain ideas about the conservative movement for which he and they played such a decisive and animating role. It is telling that they did not seek to enumerate a list of issues on which conservatives must agree. If anything, Buckley, Meyer, Chambers, et al. argued that conservatism is neither an ideology nor an exercise in litmus tests. Buckley spent as much time reading fringe groups out of the conservative movement as he did defining what it was, precisely because he knew that conservatism is as much about temperament and tendencies than it is about a specific position on a given issue.
The conservative instinct is to trust the market and individual liberty as vehicles to happiness and prospertiy; to respect the great traditions of faith that have shaped culture and community for many generations; to trod carefully on the graveyards of our past; to see government not as a tool through which to mold perfect societies and perfect human beings, but as an instrument for solving limited challenges that are beyond the means of the private sector: e.g. curbing widespread pollution, overseeing defense, or managing economic challenges that threaten the viability of our free enterprise system.
Conservatives have digested the lesson that the greatest tragedies of the past century revolved around centralized powers wielding the power of the state to impose a narrow vision of perfection on imperfect individuals; in the fog of such dreams did the nightmares of fascism and communism materialize.
Conservatives should have a deep and abiding respect for individuals trying to responsibly govern their own lives, within their own moral, community and religious traditions, genuflecting not to the power of government or the market, but to their God. We resist collective solutions even as we build alliances, one issue and one neighbor at a time. We know government has a role, but we contend that the burden of proof for activating the state lies with those who seek to wield its great power.
If conservatives are struggling to find their bearings these days, well, that is only natural. Many of the great men and at least some of the great issues around which conservatism adhered for several generations are gone or are fading. But the preservation of liberty, community and faith are not trifling things. A vigorous discussion about the meaning of conservatism is not a bad thing, but I, for one, hope that those seeking to narrow the ideological parameters of conservatism don't do more harm than good.
George Shadroui has been published in more than two dozen newspapers and magazines, including National Review and Frontpagemag.com. shadroui@yahoo.com
conservatism is immutable natural law, common sense. it is sanity itself. as such, it is interminable. its polar opposite (there can be no in-between) is clever, dirty, and relentless but ultimately impotent no matter what disguise he wears.
“conservatism adhered for several generations are gone or are fading”
Little by little, the look of the country changes, because of the men we admire.
Conservatism might survive, but republicanism is what is going to lose this next election.
On Poll Results and the End of Conservatism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951282/posts
Seems like a good arguement for the lesser of two evils.
Still I’ve had my fill of tofu. No thanks.
Since the current version of republicanism isn't worth a damn, I could care less.
Much more important to me is putting a solid conservative (read, FRed Thompson :) in the White House.
We must stand against all others. This is it. This election will drive our country for the next generation.
Fred is “conservative enough” to get my vote, but not conservative enough to get my support. My support goes to Duncan Hunter until he drops out.
I think that this is the wrong question. I have no fears for Conservatism, it has waxed and waned over the years but will remain viable because it is based on fundamental principles of liberty, freedom, and free enterprise.
What may not survive the results of 2008 is the nation. Hillary Clinton will bring to power the most radical set of self-absorbed, narcissistic, meglomaniacs that the nation has ever seen. They will be bent on destroying the country in order to rebuild it in their own image. God help us.
Of course it will. It is a philosophy. Conservative candidates may or may not win elections, but that can’t take down a philosophy.
It’s just a laugh the MSM poses this question. They never do it when liberals lose. It’s always an abberation, we didn’t get our message out, we need to change our message, etc etc.
But, in this election I will vote for the GOP nominee, because the troops are deployed in war zones. They don’t deserve to have a Commander in Chief from the party of surrender. So I’ll hold my nose and vote; even for “Little Bill Clinton” or McLame.
Conservatism didn’t survive 2000.
There is a lot to that point. Once we are operating outside religion, which is the case in a secular state, no one has a clue what to do, so we each do as we think best. The interlude in the OT we know as Judges was one of those periods. Everyone did as he thought best.
“Everyone did as he thought best.”
This is true, and the left is destroying God and us as a result.
And when God is removed, people will believe in anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.