Back to the Basics for the Conservative Movement

True North Radio Website ^ | 11/11/2008 | Self

[rob777]

In the wake of an election which has given the conservative movement few things to cheer about, the process of picking up the pieces and deciding where to go from here has already begin. Most of the attention has been on who is to blame for the political losses and how to come back from those losses. The discussion so far gives the impression that the conservative movement is solely a political movement. Very little attention is given to the part of the movement that is engaged in a war of ideas with the battlefield being the institutions of culture and the avenues of communication.

I find this to be a little ironic as the modern conservative movement has its roots in an ideological reaction to the top down social engineering approach that came about with the rise of the Progressives. In his book "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America", George H. Nash traces the early revolt of libertarians and traditionalists against the utopian collectivist trend brought about by the Progressive movement that culminated in Wilsonian Internationalism and the Roosevelt era "New Deal". The libertarians objected to the threat posed to individual liberty and the traditionalist objected to the undermining of the role of the family and local community. An uneasy alliance was made to be later joined by anti-communists. The common thread that held these groups together and fashioned them into a movement was opposition to big government social engineering. In those days the focus was in gaining a hearing for conservatism in the world of ideas. The idea was to shape the public debate and try to stop the leftward lurch towards collectivism. They knew the tide of public opinion was against them and they sought to move public opinion rather than fashion a message that would appeal to the public so that they could gain political office.

Decades of laboring in the arena of ideas bore political fruit when Ronald Reagan was elected President. Reagan embodied all three strands of the conservative movement and became its primary spokesman. The problem here was that the conservative movement soon began to focus more of its energy on shaping a message that was politically popular so as to not lose the political gains they won. This meant abandoning the principled opposition to much of the "New Deal" agenda. The result, as David Frum points out in his book "Dead Right" was that the conservative movement soon became a loose coalition of groups who championed particular issues, rather than an overall worldview. By hedging on opposition to big government in principle, they removed the heart and soul that defined conservatism. The new glue that held them together was anti-communism. That became a problem when the Soviet Union fell. Since then there have been numerous attempts to redefine conservatism so that big government can be used to serve conservative ends. This has got to be the biggest oxymoron that I have ever heard. If the core principle of conservatism is a principled opposition to big government social engineering, how can one go about using big government to serve conservative ends?

In our attempts at a post mortem I would like to suggest that we examine just how it came to be that we seem to be so confused about what conservatism is. It is my opinion that the political success of conservatism caused a large segment of the movement to forget that conservatism is more than merely a political movement. While that is certainly part of it, a major aspect of conservatism is to be a movement of principles and ideas aimed at shaping public opinion. That wing of the movement simply must stop worrying about whether a conservative idea is politically popular and invest more energy in finding ways to shape public opinion so that it becomes popular. The "Ideological" wing of the movement needs to be ahead of the political curve and focus on shifting the public debate our way. That would mean taking positions of issues, which appear to the general public to be a little radical. Leave it up to the political arm of the movement to determine just how much of conservatism is feasible to implement here and now in the political arena.

A good start in this direction would be to clearly define what conservatism is. As I mentioned, the modern conservative movement in America rose as a principled reaction on the part of libertarians and traditionalists to the social engineering aspect of the Progressive movement. They were later joined by anti-communists. This gives the impression that conservatism is merely a reactionary movement. The problem with this view is that in order to oppose something, you must first be for something. Perhaps it is time to examine just what American Conservatism stands for as a positive worldview. Stay tuned.

Robert Maynard is the Editor of the True North website

[Caribou]

To regenerate the GOP is to NOT take advice from the liberal MSM.

And of course, kick out the RINOs who decided to back zero.

[Nathan Zachary]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Hasn’t everyone already wrote at least one of these already?

We didn’t loose this election. It was a well planned coup,
And MSM was a very big part of it.

[EagleUSA]

Presently, conservatism lacks LEADERSHIP. Until a credible group of leaders begin to FIGHT anti-Americanism, socialism, and big government monolithic power, will we have a chance to RESTORE America to what it originally was, and was intended to be.

A free nation, founded on the principles of FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL and the core values upheld by the Constitution.

As we now sit, watching our economy nose dive on the fear of an elected radical socialist President, we wonder how long it will take for conservative leadership to re-appear.

[Nathan Zachary]

In his book "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America"

And why do people read a book and think it's the utmost authority of everything that is wrong?

[Nathan Zachary]

She already did.

[Paladin2]

Renouncing the Huckster and McCain would be a good start.

[Turbo Pig]

FReeper, FRankR put forth the ideas that led to the term “Guerrilla Conservative” on another thread. Fight not only liberalism, but the GOP old guard, the same way our fore fathers fought the British on the road leading away from Concord Green. Fight them from behind every tree, fence and barn. Vote locally, think nationally. Challenge everything; even if it is to say to a liberal co-worker, “You are wrong”. Disembowel the GOP and fill it with real Conservatives.

[Oztrich Boy]

You are right.

[MEGoody]

. . .fill it with real Conservatives.

Part of the problem is that people can't agree on what constitutes a 'real conservative'. The biggest disagreement seems to revolve around 'social issues', i.e. abortion. But as you probably saw during the recent campaign, there was a great deal of disagreement here on FR as to whether a 'real conservative' would have warred with Saddam Hussein or not.

[Warlord David]

Good Posting The first thing is that as we try to rebuild the conservative base. Obama and the Democrats will move us to the left in 3 ways. 1. Ban the bible has hate speech. 2. Ban speech on radio and TV, by the fairness doctrine. 3. Take away rights to bear arms. To basically neuter the conservative period. Therefore we must work on two fronts.

Three thing define conservative
1. Its in the bible.
2. Its base on common sence., as we see the world
3. Its base on proven traditions that past the test of time

Good luck

[gogov]

That is an oxymoron: Back to basics for conservative movement. By definition, conservatives are basics.

What the headline should read, back to conservativism for GOP.

The problem with that is conservatism has been so re-defined that current thinking on what it is to be conservative is lost.

It has been hijacked by several groups, for example evangelicals who have some tenants of conservatism but want to also use government for their own ends.

[Jeff Head]

Amen to that...yes she did.

...and the libs and RINO's detest her because of her ability to connect with common Americans all over the country. Her appeal was evident not only in the large numbers who came out to see her, but in the excitement generated at those rallies.

She accomplished more in a few short weeks in that regard than other politicians have in a life time.

Now, that McCain lost, we must do our part to stand in the breech and write our GOP senators and urge them to stand.

At the same time standing up in any way we can ourselves over these next four years until we can turn this OBAMANATION out.

Many more designs here.

[MEGoody]

Presently, conservatism lacks LEADERSHIP.

Maybe because there is disagreement about what constitutes conservatism.

Even here on FR, people who hold socially conservative values (i.e. who are pro-life) are told to get out of the party by some. And I'm sure you saw the spirited debates during the recent campaign about whether or not it was conservative to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

How can we expect good leadership when we can't even agree amongst ourselves what we want them to lead us to?

[Nathan Zachary]

And she’ll be “fighting” at that meeting of GOP governors.

But for now, what can anyone do? Yell at bush to get off his ass? I don’t know if that’s a good idea. I’d rather he just sit and do nothing quite frankly. He could go bomb Iran if he wants, just stay away from the marketplace.

In fact the less government does, the better, it’s all got to straighten itself out the way free markets are meant to.

Besides, at this point a crash is needed, and probably the best thing that can happen considering what we have sitting in the office of the Usurper elect, waiting to “rule” America.

The less money he has to play with, the better. The worse things get while his hands are tied, the faster those still dazzled by “the messiah” will wake up and turn against him.

[Nathan Zachary]

" Obama and the Democrats will move us to the left in 3 ways. 1. Ban the bible has hate speech."

I doubt that. As much as they may want to, they would have to ban the Koran first. The bible doesn't have anything close to hate speech in comparison.

[trumandogz]

In order to retain true Conservatives and attract new voters the Republican Party must be absolutely PRO-LIFE and promote the Pro-Life Message at every speech, every appearance and every commercial.

The Party must also release a plan of how the Federal and State Governments will enforce abortion/murder laws once Roe is overturned and propose prison penalties for those who perform abortions as well as those who have abortions and those who conspire with women to have abortions.

[Dawebman]

[Warlord David]

I was thinking of Canada. Who have succeed in banning parts of the bible, instead of the Koran. And if you ban parts of the bible you have ban the bible period.

[sickoflibs]

RE : And MSM was a very big part of it.

The MSM picked McCain and Obama and then finally Obama,and it was similar to 1992 and Clinton.

However, you really have to accept that Pelosi was very controlled and focused on one goal, total victory using GWB. GWB thought he could restore his failed legacy ( Iraq prior to surge) by betraying republicans, splitting them, and trying to make anti-conservative deals with democrats. You do realize the ‘GWB destroy conservatism and party’ list is very long? Our party could not continue that way, and it didn't. GWB was too establishment and he believed in success by doing BIG things, no matter what they are.