Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Saving Conservatism

It is no secret that the last two elections have gone badly for conservatives. Over the last four years Republicans have lost both houses of Congress and the White House to democrats. It has been a reversal of the situation in the early 2000s when Republicans won the White House in 2000 with George W. Bush and the Senate in the 2002 Congressional elections. How long with this stinging defeat last for conservatives? It is impossible to tell. Although some talk radio hosts like to think that the recent elections have not been a referendum on conservatives, it is hard to see what else this has been that reaction of disillusionment on the part of many Americans to what they see as the failings of conservatism. How long the American public holds this view depends on how conservatives react to the current political environment. I will suggest several things that might not solve all the problems facing conservatism today, but are critical to putting conservatism back on track.

The first problem with conservatism today is its repugnant populism. Beginning in the 1980s as many socially conservative blue-collar workers became disillusioned with the liberal social agenda of the Democrats, Republics were quick to reach out to this demographic to extend the conservative base. However, this outreach has caused a numbing down of intellectual conservatism in the party’s platform. Demagogues in the form of talk radio have hijacked the conservative movement by appealing to the “common sense” of the “common man.” Solutions are often put forth bluntly, with slanderous rhetoric that angrily attacks opposition. In this case, conservatism has become more reactionary than conservative. It conjures up in the historic memory of the common man this idea of classic Americana that has viciously been assaulted by liberals and needs to be restored. Typically this type of reactionary conservatism uses this ideal and mythical model of Americana instead of reasoning as the basis for party platform and tends to extremely inflexible in its beliefs. In a streak of anti-intellectualism, liberals are put forth as elitists that need to be countered, not with equal intellectual fire-power, but with the common sense of the common man. It offers over simplistic answers to complex questions. This switch has drastically isolated the educated class, especially college students who abhor conservative’s tactless rhetoric and lack of interest in engaging with the intelligentsia. Conservatives have continually failed to sway this demographic because of their inability to present intellectual appeal. Academia is often demonized. While it is true that academia is usually contrary to conservative ideals, what it needs is to be transformed by conservative ideals rather than blow apart by them. Rational discussion, opposed to bumper sticker ideology, is key.

Secondly conservatives had over-relied on social conservatism. Both Republicans and President Bush heavily relied on conservative evangelicals for their core basis of support during the last eight years. The fear among social conservatives that turning against Bush and Republicans, despite some egregious violations of other conservative values such as limited government and fiscal conservatism, would surrender society to the social liberal agenda. In short Bush was able to maintain popularity among conservatism throughout his term by appealing to social conservatism all the while undergoing massive government expansion, increasing the national deficit, and committing some foreign policy blunders. Now I by no means mean to bash Bush here. Liberals have done that enough, but certainly I feel that Bush betrayed some serious conservative ideals, perhaps unintentionally, by relying too heavily on social conservative support. Unfortunately the advances of social conservatism by governmental means are rather limited outside sanctity of life legislation and proposing a marriage-protection article to the Constitution. Pushing a social conservative agenda also isolates non-social conservatives who, nonetheless, could cooperate with conservatives on other projects (e.g. fiscal responsibility). In short, social conservatism is best resigned to grass-roots movements because pushing a social conservative agenda in big government can cause resentment and end up being counterproductive.

Finally conservatives need to rebuild their moral capital. Many Americans felt betrayed by conservatives’ fiscal irresponsibility to the point that they perceived little difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. Also, the angry rhetoric coming out of talk radio (such as Rush Limbaugh’s tactless statement that he hopes that President Obama fails) does more harm that it does good. Conservatives need to return to core values such as discipline, fiscal conservatism, and constitutionalism. Many social conservative’s worries could be better addressed by appointing conservative judges who do not legislate from the bench. Conservatives need to rein in spending and only then will they be able to criticize Obama’s Keynesian economic policies without appearing hypocritical. In short, conservatives need to regain the moral high ground that they have lost from out-of-control spending, rushing into war in 2003 with faulty intelligence, and angry rhetoric from talk radio. While it might be tempting to lash out at Obama, conservatives need to criticize Obama with the respective his office deserves, a respect that liberals did not accord to Bush during his presidency. Only by doing this will conservatives regain the moral high ground in the minds of the American people.

In short conservatives need to rebuild their political movement based on dispassionate politics, discipline, fiscal conservatism, ethical responsibility and guardianship of traditional government practices. The Republican Party needs to de-emphasize its populist appeal and reach out intellectually to college students and young professionals. It must be smart, flexible, disciplined, and kind. Placing its eggs in the basket of populism is a poor investment because the social conservative, blue-collar demographic is rapidly decreasing in favor of a more idealistic and college-educated professional. All of this begins with building a firm intellectual basis, which, by necessity, must be more flexible. Conservatives must prioritize their agenda and cooperate with others, even liberals, in order to achieve aspects of it. Conservatives must cease to be seen as reactionary and instead as actually conservative; i.e. preserving long-standing values while being flexible with change and figuring out how to intelligently apply traditional values with new challenges.

No comments:

Post a Comment