Philosophical common ground
Since recently writing articles mentioning conservative principles, I received emails from youthful acquaintances asking for clarification as to what I was referring. Reflection upon their age brought the realization that they probably were never fully exposed to conservatism's philosophical roots.
The last eight years certainly did not provide them with a profile of conservatism in action. They probably were not politically aware when the Contract With America was relevant, and were either not yet born or mature during the presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
These requests intrigued me, particularly when coupled with recent events. There is a moderate-led schism within today's conservative movement, as well as a transitional segment proposing to facilitate the inclusion of new adherents by denaturing core principles.
As illustrated by the recent abandonment or denigration of "low-brow" conservative defender Rush Limbaugh by some in the movement's "intellectual" wing, it appears that there are many of us claiming to be conservative who may need to revisit the formula that propelled conservatism to the fore of American politics.
This principles primer for my young friends will require installments. For the veterans amongst you who happen to read along and who are far more knowledgeable about this topic, there is no intent to lecture or judge; You know what's best for you and I suspect will steadfastly maintain your own interpretations.
American conservatism at a glance
It is important to first note that American conservatism has no real political home; Conservatives are found in both major political parties as well as the Libertarian Party. But conservatives have generally gravitated toward the Republican Party because it usually espouses political goals that more closely mesh with conservative principles. But this was not always so.
What we call American Conservatism is known as Classical Liberalism to most Western nations (present-day American Liberalism has metamorphosed since the 1960s into quasi-socialism, or what is commonly termed Modern Liberalism).
It is often argued that unlike socialism, libertarianism, communism, and fascism, conservatism and liberalism are not true ideologies, but rather compilations of principled ideas.
This sharply contrasts with one definition of ideology as the mechanism through which liberal society devolves into tyranny.
Prior to the 1950s, there was no true American Conservative Movement, but rather a melange of traditionalists and libertarians who fervently opposed the prevailing welfare state mentality of the dominant Democrat Party.
However, Republicans of the 1940s and 1950s were politically moderate to liberal, intellectually inclined, and quick to compromise. Their ranks included the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Kenneth Keating, Everett Dirksen, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Jacob Javits, Thomas Dewey, and Robert Taft.
Genesis of American conservatism
As outlined by Dr. Donald J. Devine of the American Conservative Union Foundation, modern American conservatism found substance at National Review (NR) magazine in the mid-1950s, fashioned by editors William F. Buckley, Jr. and Frank S. Meyer.
Buckley and libertarian Meyer were themselves entertained by the writings of such luminaries as Friedrich A. von Hayek, Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Richard Weaver, and Willmoore Kendall. With a view encompassing common sense and tradition, their new doctrine grew from the interactions of NR's argumentative staff.
Needing common ground from which to publish, Meyer coined the term "fusionist" conservatism. Its highest value was liberty, to be used responsibly as a means to pursue traditionally-defined goals.
According to Devine, from this formula flowed conservatism's support of Western values as desired ends and opposition to both domestic statism and international communism. Judeo-Christian morality, the family, religion, local communities and national patriotism were the values Meyer defined as Western.
This also meant support for individual freedom, free markets, voluntary associations, local governments, and unfettered businesses -- especially small businesses.
NR's success and persuasive arguments inspired additional conservative journals, new think tanks, political action organizations, Barry Goldwater's ascension in the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan's successes in limiting the welfare state, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the USSR, and after a five-decade hiatus, the 1994 Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Why conservatism succeeds ...
As correctly opined by William J. Haun at the American Conservative Union Foundation Web site, the most successful conservatives in American national politics have been unapologetically just that, conservative. Whether Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, or any other, the conservatives that successfully rallied the American people to conservatism were and are the true believers.
True believers like Ronald Reagan were popular across the political spectrum. By clearly defining his beliefs, projecting a positive message, and promoting the great potential of America, Reagan garnered the votes of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and moderates.
Ironically, it was Republican intellectuals who most roundly held Reagan and his ideals in contempt.
In 2009 it is difficult to envision, but conservative presidential candidates twice won 49 of 50 states -- in 1972 and 1984 -- yes, even including those of traditionally liberal New England states.
... and falters
Conservatism falters when the movement's guiding principles are forgotten, compromised, or worse, abandoned. One need look no further than to what happened after disastrous non-conservative Republican Party doses of Bushes 41 and 43, and the abysmal open primary-induced nomination of moderate rogue John McCain.
Haun reminds us that conservatives such as Reagan and Buckley did not inspire people to conservative ideals by talking about how bipartisan a conservative should be.
Courses of action such as "appealing to moderates" and "reaching across the aisle" do not build or sustain a movement, nor do they represent principles worth defending. At most and to be generous, these losing propositions are merely last-gasp political straws.
Why would anyone want to vote for someone who compromises principles and accedes to the beliefs of his or her political adversaries? Why indeed.
But what about conservative principles?
It was important to briefly review the American Conservative Movement so that conservative neophytes understand just how recently the movement arrived on the American political scene.
Because of its relative youth when compared to libertarianism or liberalism, American conservatism is still suffering from growing pains. As such, there must be found a way to meld conservative principles with the realities of modern demographics and domestic challenges.
This will require civil dialogue and honest debate between the movement's smaller but predominant intellectual wing and its larger but less influential grass-roots constituency. It is this author's opinion that conservatism will not flourish if one or the other is marginalized.
In the next installment, we will explore Conservative Principles. Depending on the reference, their numbers vary but the message remains constant. Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles serve as the benchmark, but they are often accurately condensed into six or seven.
So until next time, review Kirk's principles, stay positive, and be of good cheer.