All around Washington, and perhaps all around the country, groups
of politically inclined people are having conversations about how
to revitalize the conservative movement, or how to rebuild the
Republican Party (a different thing entirely), or both. But the
usual suspects are out there in the meantime using newsprint and
megaphones to pound home their message that conservatives and
Republicans should either abandon fiscal
conservatism/small-government predilections or abandon “social
issues” that in the words of the obnoxious Kathleen Parker make
its adherents into an “oogedy-boogedy” caucus.
The groups having the conversations are acting constructively.
The others can stuff it.
The usual suspects pushing for conservatives to drop essential
and longstanding tenets of conservatism are asking conservatives
to stop being conservatives. That’s like asking Catholics to stop
being Catholics, or like demanding that Red Sox fans start
wearing Orioles uniforms.
Forget it.
Wait. What’s that? Oh, I see…. The usual suspects
protest that they have our best interests at heart. They say
their advice is for our own good, because if we want to win in
this brave new political world, we’ll need to adjust. Adjust our
thinking. Adjust our beliefs. Adjust our values.
No way.
If this were a football game, it would be all about winning. But
this isn’t a game. It’s our country. We care about politics not
because we care first about winning, but because we believe in
certain principles. Of course we want the principles to be
implemented — yes, we want them to win — but it’s the winning
that must be in service of the principles, not vice versa.
Winning without the principles is an oxymoron. It’s like
congratulating an Auburn fan in the name of Bear Bryant. Without
the principles, we haven’t won. It’s that simple.
Limited government isn’t a means, it’s an end. Or, rather, it’s
part and parcel of the end of maximum liberty under law that is
rooted in the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical tradition. We
believe that if government isn’t limited, it is dangerous.
Likewise, protection of parental authority and of the nuclear
family isn’t just a nostalgic or emotional tic; it’s bedrock of a
free society because — among many other blessings — it provides
the stability and order without which freedom quickly devolves
into anarchy.
Therefore, all of this supposedly wise tactical advice to the
effect that we should abandon, or significantly play down, any of
the main principles that animate us is neither wise nor
tactically clever, nor even realistic. It assumes that
conservatives could be successful acting as if we’re something
that we’re not. But in the long run, inauthenticity never works.
Integrity is more powerful.
This leads us back to the groups having the constructive
discussions despite the usual suspects in the establishment
media. The conversations are about how to persuade more people
that our principles are worthy ones and that, if implemented,
those principles will provide the form of government best able to
maintain a prosperous, just, and fundamentally decent society.
Somewhere along the line, conservatism (as understood in the
modern context; although more rightly called “classical
liberalism”) lost a significant amount of its political
salability. The question isn’t how to change conservatism, but
how to sell it better — how to explain it better, how to
communicate it more effectively, how to enthuse more people with
it and about it, how to get it to command the majorities it needs
in order to be implemented.
Sure, we need new ideas. New “programs,” creative approaches to
governing, ways to tackle new problems that didn’t exist in 1787
when Madison helped birth the Constitution or in 1987 when Reagan
helped drive the nails into the coffin of the Evil Empire. But
that doesn’t mean we need new principles. Principles are not
programmatic. Programs involve the application of principles to
concrete situations. But the principles, if they are sound ones,
remain the same from age to age and program to program. And if a
program would change a sound principle, then the program isn’t
worth pursuing.
What are some of those principles? Well, with James Madison, we
believe in republican remedies for the diseases of republican
government, that free governments are best secured where they
allow for a multiplicity of interests, that ambition must be
allowed to counteract ambition, and “that the private interest of
every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.” With
Grover Cleveland, we believe that “When more of the people’s
sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is
necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses
of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless
extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of free
government.”
With Richard Weaver, we believe that ideas have consequences;
that life and the world are to be cherished; that some ideas and
values transcend others; that excellence and heroism should be
recognized and honored; that while equality before the law is
necessary and moral, equality of condition is impossible and a
“disorganizing heresy.” And with Willmoore Kendall (and with
Madison), we believe that the most basic American political
tradition is that of the representative assembly deliberating
under God, and that the ultimate guarantor of our rights is no
list of rights committed to paper but rather the constitutional
processes of deliberative government itself.
With Ronald Reagan, we believe that peace is achieved through
strength, and that the United States is an inherently moral actor
on the world’s stage.
And also with Ronald Reagan, we believe that because we are
Americans, “we have every right to dream heroic dreams.” And to
make those dreams come true.
Those are some of our principles. Programmatically, to put those
principles into action, we believe in low and fair taxation, in
government limited in its ends and size, in balanced budgets, in
a strong but not bloated military, in parental/family choice and
control in education, in strong police forces and court systems
under strict civilian elected authority, in free enterprise
within a system of readily understandable rules, in the sanctity
of contracts, in judges with self-restraint and respect for the
actual text of our Constitution and laws, and in sound money.
The great thing about it is, majorities (or strong pluralities)
of Americans instinctively believe these things. The trick isn’t
to, well, to trick them, but to remind them that what they
already believe (if they stop and think about it) is worth
believing and adhering to.
Prediction: In coming months, because of so many conversations
about how to revive our political prospects — technologically,
tonally, verbally, organizationally, and temperamentally — we
all will see noticeable improvements in conservative messages and
messengers. And, because Republicans cannot win without
conservatives, you will see these improvements among Republicans,
including sometimes clueless Republican elected officials, as
well.
And we’ll do it without abrogating in any way, shape or form our
commitment to limited government and time-tested values.
