Conservatism seeking a home
There has always been a conservative tradition in America. From the days of our Founders to present, conservative principles have been advanced and applied in our governance and society,
in one form or another, throughout our history. But what we know as modern American conservatism is relatively youthful and more ideological than substantive -- for example, there is no prominent National Conservative Party. Which, in light of the recent election results of 2006 and 2008, begs this question:
Where does the American Conservative Movement go from here?
To understand why such a question need be posed, it is important to appreciate the disposition of today's conservatism. The home base of the modern Conservative Movement, that old coalition comprised chiefly of disaffected Southern and Cold War Democrats, blue-collar patriots, evangelical Christians, veterans, and conservative Republicans, was by default the Republican Party.
However, recent internal conflicts within this coalition have illustrated that the political identity of conservatism and the stability of its place within the Republican Party is a great deal shakier than it was during the ascension and stewardship of Ronald Reagan.
Modern conservatism
From its genesis in the late 1940s and early 1950s as diminutive, isolated, intellectual pods nurtured by the passions of libertarianesque thinkers such as Russell Kirk, Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand, America's modern Conservative Movement slowly developed form and substance.
Many other dedicated idealists such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Frank Meyer, Milton Friedman, Robert Welch, Barry Goldwater, and Paul Weyrich spurred on its growth from the mid-1950s into what eventually became a prominent national political force.
American conservatism as it is known today is a loosely-defined hybrid of traditionalist laissez faire capitalism and libertarianism. At its barest essence, the movement promotes the melding of economic freedom with the conservation of American traditions such as individualism, moral and spiritual vigor, and limited government.
But as entropy drives the universe, so too is everything we know affected by change -- and American conservatism proved to be no exception to this rule. Such a tendency toward randomness has indeed occurred, and there is now a battle within conservatism's home port, the Republican Party, over who will define and ultimately lead the Conservative Movement into the future.
Slippery slope to ignominy
During the last several years, we have seen two Republican presidential administrations and a Republican congressional majority inexorably drift away from conservatism's primal duality of fiscal responsibility and limited government. We have watched as bedrock principles have been compromised or bartered away in the name of "bipartisanship." We have squandered the political integrity and cutting-edge vision bequeathed us by President Reagan's two tsunami-like election victories, his leadership by example, and the Congressional Revolution of 1994.
Indeed, the Republican Party leaders of today preach moderation and allied pundits such as Brooks, Kristol, and Parker routinely excoriate conservative idealists. This past election, they went along to get along, vainly hoped the media would finally like them, spent us into debt to curry votes from groups who would never vote Republican, belittled evangelicals and the "Far-Right," ran a moderate, Democrat-lite presidential candidate, and are now on the outside looking in.
Enabling Big Government and championing entitlement spending to create voting blocks will never work. The moderate argument that "this is what the American people want" is as hackneyed as it is disingenuous. This sort of social-think, this weak new adaptation of socialist central planning isn't going to further the Conservative Movement any more than it will the Republican Party.
Disagree? You might check the election results to see how Republican candidates running as staunch conservatives fared as opposed to Republican candidates running as Democrat clones. For that matter, research how Democrat candidates who gave lip service to conservative principles fared. Be prepared for a very big surprise. How in the world can anyone be obtuse enough to believe voters will choose a politician who says "I can work with Democrats" when they can simply vote for a Democrat?
Fundamental beliefs must not be compromised
Frittering away one's core beliefs for the misguided sake of expediency will not lead to the success and prosperity of conservatism or the nation as a whole. It will most certainly lead to the enhancement of those who desire as much government control over people's lives as possible.
There will never be another Reagan but that does not mean that we should abandon his ideals, successfully practiced and proven over time. Show me a candidate who doesn't possess and proudly extol his or her conservative core beliefs, and who panders to Democrats, moderates, Hispanics, and any other voting segment you can name and I'll show you John McCain.
Our nation was founded on the concept of self-reliance and individualism, not collectivism and nannyism. By striving to better ourselves we better the lives of our families, our neighbors, our communities, and our nation. Individual liberty is what sets this country apart from every other -- we term this American exceptionalism. We also acknowledge that our creation is spiritual, not governmental, and that our freedom is a natural essence of our creation rather than some regal boon.
Republicans, wake up and welcome home conservatives
There is no such thing as a conservative version of Big Government; it can never exist, and those who promote such nonsense are sycophants. The power elites and their minions who control the Republican Party would be best served by heeding the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, words perhaps more critical now than when first uttered in 1975:
"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way."
To think and govern any other way will guarantee perpetual failure.