America is not as conservative as it seemed in 2004 and it isn’t
as liberal as it looks this morning.
What happened is that four years ago, voters put their trust in
one political party to run the country and they didn’t like the
results, and so, over the course of two elections, they
systematically threw out that political party and turned to a
different one. If Democrats disappoint the public, they could be
waking up on a not so distant November morning just as devastated
as Republicans are today.
Those who are in the profession of writing the first rough draft
of history would have us believe that a single election result
can signal the end of an intellectual tradition, but actual
history instructs us otherwise. This is especially true for
conservatism, which rose from the staggering defeat of one its
own in 1964, to a glorious triumph 16 years later.
John McCain is an honorable man who sacrificed more for this
nation than most of us can imagine, but he’s also eccentric and
idiosyncratic. During the campaign, he railed against Wall Street
greed and excessive CEO pay on the one hand and against his
opponent’s plans to redistribute wealth on the other; he called
for a spending freeze while proposing that government spend
hundreds of billions of dollars to freeze home foreclosures by
partially socializing the housing market.
Of all the ways to put these election results in broader
historical context, it’s quite a stretch to equate the defeat of
John McCain with the end of conservatism.
At the same time, it would be irresponsible and unhelpful to
ignore the severe challenges conservatism faces in both the
immediate and long term.
WHEN HE ENTERED the presidential race nearly two years ago, most
conservatives didn’t give Barack Obama a chance against the
vaunted Clinton machine. After he finally emerged victorious from
the protracted primary, many conservatives clung to the belief
that disgruntled Clinton voters and working class whites in rural
areas would deny him the presidency. To date, Obama has proven
all of the skeptics wrong.
The sooner conservatives realize that Obama is not merely a
gifted orator, but an incredibly talented politician with the
potential to be a transformational liberal leader, the better
prepared they will be to resist his agenda. In a time of economic
crisis, with Democrats having overwhelming control of both
chambers of Congress, stopping him will be difficult, but it
won’t be impossible.
Although Obama has radical liberal roots, he was elected
president by papering over his past, and convincing Americans
that he was a pragmatic moderate who would cut their taxes and be
more fiscally responsible than President Bush. Democrats won
Congressional races in traditionally conservative districts in
much the same way. If, once in power, Obama and his Democratic
allies cater to their liberal base, it will be jarring to
Americans who had something different in mind when they voted for
the abstract concept of change.
Conservatives won’t thwart Democrats by name-calling, but by
articulating to the country why liberal proposals will have
disastrous implications, and emphasizing that there is little
room left to expand social programs when the government has to
fund a $700 billion bailout — just as tax revenue falls as a
result of the shrinking economy.
While the network of conservative think tanks, journalists, and
activists will have to spend the foreseeable future on defense,
trying to contain the march of liberalism, it will also be a time
for the movement to engage in long-term thinking, so that it will
be in a position to reassert itself when the political conditions
are right.
Many conservatives would agree that the basket of issues that led
to Ronald Reagan’s historic victory don’t have the salience that
they did in 1980, when the top marginal tax rate was 70 percent
and the Soviet Union still loomed large. But that’s where the
agreement ends.
Some of those who identify themselves as conservatives would have
us believe that the conclusion to draw from this is that the era
of small government conservatism is over, and that the only
option is to fight for a conservative welfare state to replace a
liberal welfare state. But that was the driving force behind
President Bush’s brand of “compassionate conservatism,” which led
us to a fiscal disaster that critics now want to blame on
traditional conservatism.
Those of us who still believe in fighting for limited government
cannot allow this to happen. It’s one thing for the Republican
Party to embrace statism, but once the conservative movement does
so at the philosophical level, it will no longer have a reason to
exist. If people want big government, they’ll support liberalism
— conservatives simply cannot beat the real thing.
IT WOULD BE ESPECIALLY shortsighted to make such concessions
given that conservatives can make small government ideology more
relevant to contemporary challenges without abandoning their core
beliefs. With all the focus on the financial crisis that hit in
this fall, the candidates all but ignored the far more
substantial financial crisis that is staring us in the face.
The United States faces a long-term deficit of over $53 trillion
that is set to bite us in just a few years, as Baby Boomers begin
to retire and current payroll taxes are no longer sufficient to
subsidize their retirements. By the time government gets around
to doing anything, the choices will be limited. Either lawmakers
rein in social programs, or they turn America into a European
welfare state, with unconscionable tax rates, high unemployment,
a stagnant economy, and a shrinking military budget. Not since
Reagan’s landslide in 1980 will there be a better time for
conservatives to make the case for a smaller government with
limited functions.
Lost in all of this is a discussion of national defense. Liberals
would like for us to behave as if the September 11 attacks never
happened. They portray the threat of Islamic terrorism as
something the Bush administration invented — or, at least,
exaggerated — in a cynical ploy to scare up votes.
More than seven years have passed since that fateful day, and so
it’s only human nature that Americans would move on and focus on
their own economic concerns. But unfortunately, our enemies have
not moved on, and if liberalism fails to adequately confront this
and other threats to our national security, then just like during
the Cold War, it will be up to conservatives to respond.
The road ahead for conservatives is long, dark, and perilous —
and there are no guarantees that the movement will reemerge in
the years to come or return to its former glory. But it certainly
isn’t dead. Not even close.
