It is important that those who are motivated to put their political ideas "out there" should regularly subject those ideas to the tests of self-examination and public scrutiny.
After the appearance of a recent article of mine in this magazine, a regular reader sent me a message saying: "As usual, Ron, I like very much what you wrote; but in the end, what is the point? You are just preaching to the choir!" By this, she meant that, as far as she could see, the readership of IC — and other outlets of a similar bent — consisted of people who were already convinced of the merits of the arguments advanced by me and other conservative writers. Therefore, she wondered, what were we accomplishing beyond the reinforcement of each other's already well-established beliefs? She has a point. But I also believe she misses some points. My goal here is to address her concern.
I will first lay out four objectives that I pursue in publishing a conservative point of view in the Intellectual Conservative. Then I will step back and briefly describe the current perilous state of our country, which is in part a consequence of the political drubbing that conservatives have suffered recently, occasioned by their failure to practice what they preach. This will lead to a fifth — and most crucial — reason for why it is important that conservative authors continue to fill the "pages" of this and similar magazines with their ideas.
1. Development and Reinforcement. The most basic objective, and the one I stand "accused of" by my reader, is the development and reinforcement of my own ideas on political conservatism. A measure of the worth of one's beliefs is how well they stand up to one's own scrutiny as well as the scrutiny of one's sympathetic listeners. More than three decades ago, my formerly liberal ideas failed that test when several traumatic events (chief among them the forced busing of my child) caused me to closely reexamine my political axioms. It is important that those who are motivated to put their political ideas "out there" should regularly subject those ideas to the tests of self-examination and public scrutiny. In any event, the positive feedback I receive from readers is very reassuring.
2. Refinement. This is close to, but not exactly the same as the first objective. I seek not only to reinforce my and my "co-believers" ideas, but also to refine and improve them. In this regard, the reactions I hear from both sympathetic and non-sympathetic readers are highly useful. We are often seduced by the harmony of our own music, but there is always room for improvement. Putting one's ideas into the trough of public opinion is a good means to elicit both the friendly and unfriendly criticism that can lead to a sharpening of one's arguments.
3. Influencing the opposition. I am always a little surprised to learn that magazines like IC do receive some limited attention from liberal readers. In particular, I have many friends and relatives who fall in the enemy camp, and yet some of them read my articles carefully. Occasionally, I get correspondence from such a reader acknowledging a point I made and admitting the legitimacy of my view. A small but gratifying victory. No liberal would be exposed to conservative ideas if venues like IC did not exist. Other conservative media outlets, some of which have substantial liberal following, play a similarly salutary role.
4. Winning the culture war. In several earlier articles (see, e.g., here or here), I outlined a long-term strategy for recapturing the conservative spirit that once animated the majority of the American populace. Put simply, it was to reverse engineer the mechanism, dreamt up by socialist thinkers a century ago — which was to completely capture the culture of the nation, knowing that the politics would follow. That is precisely what has happened. In that article I laid out some ideas for reversing the process. Magazines like IC play a fundamental role in motivating the foot soldiers of the counterrevolutionary struggle.
The Left has been advancing on many fronts in our country for more than a hundred years. They have captured the media, the educational establishment, most foundations, the legal profession and more. Their progress has been steady, highlighted by periods of huge leaps to port (under Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and perhaps now Obama). The only successful counterattacks in the 20th century came under Coolidge and Reagan. And while Reagan had some success, his good work has largely been undone by the Bushes and other fake conservative Republicans who aped and appeased the liberals over the last twenty years — which has resulted in the unmitigated disaster that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime represents.
It is easy for a conservative to survey the scene and be dejected. The behemoth that the Federal Government has become constrains our individual freedoms on a daily basis — and the Obama team is working feverishly to turn the screws tighter. The respect for Western Civilization and our Constitutional, republican system among the people is at an all-time low — and declining. Our economy is crippled by massive debt, a crumbling dollar and runaway entitlements; the latter summons the image of a train speeding on a one-way track toward a brick wall — and Obama is stepping on the accelerator. Who or what shall rescue us? Oh despair . . . which leads me to my last and most important reason why I, why all conservatives need to keep putting the truth before the American people.
5. Faith. The creation of the American experiment in self-government more than two centuries ago was an act of faith. Our founders had faith, not only in Divine Providence, but also in the good sense of the American people, whom they believed manifested a unique zeal for the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and moral propriety. They understood that the struggle to maintain those ideals in the future would be difficult — that it would require the continued benevolent hand of Providence and the good judgment of the people. Without these, the Republic would succumb to one of the tyrannies at either end of the political spectrum — the concentrated power of a despotic individual or group, or the mobocracy inherent in an unchecked "democracy" devoted to mindless egalitarianism. Today the Republic is in danger, thanks to a bizarre combination of both extremes — albeit much more of the latter than the former.
The fifth objective of the conservative blogosphere is to express its continued faith that the two sets of hands into which our founders entrusted the American experiment are still reliable. Conservatives still believe, as Reagan said, that "God had a divine purpose in placing this land between the two great oceans to be found by those who had a special love of freedom and courage," which expresses our faith in both founding pillars. If we lose that faith, then there truly is no hope.
Ron,
I agree completely with the tone & substance of your posting. Never have the tests of self-examination and public scrutiny held more importance for conservatives than today.
One only has to asses the recent elections to comprehend the importance of re-inculcating conservative values; not only to the electorate but to candidates as well. One may see this in microcosm by closely investigating the recent election in NY-23.
Consider NYT Columnist Frank Rich's comments about the 'Jacobin' nature of the Republicans in NY-23 for failing to accept Dede Scozzafava as their standard bearer. He called them 'Stalinists' who had joined a 'putsch'.
And senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett told ABC's "This Week" that the grassroots conservative-vs.-GOP leadership battle over NY-23 showed that the Republican Party leadership was "becoming more and more extreme, and more and more marginalized." And believe me, after being directly involved in the hiring of Van Jones, she has proven her credientials as an expert on marginalized extremists.
After the election results were known; David Axelrod said; "… The New York contest for the 23rd Congressional District was the one race that was really a microcosm of the national debate. A Democrat hasn't held that seat for 140 years. … I think that sends a strong message."
Detailed analysis of this election proves Ms. Jarrett, Mr. Rich, and Mr. Axelrod all wrong
Ever since the 2006 elections, the liberal mantra has been; "Conservatism equates to Fascism. It is a tired position of the past and no longer a winning strategy. Conservatives must moderate their message or they will continually lose." By doing this, liberals are doing nothing other than choosing the ground on which they want to fight.
In order to complete this explanation, we must look at the three basic types of conservatives:
• First there are the 'lock-step conservatives. These are the hard corps 15%. The kool aide drinkers that inhabit the fringes of both sides of the political spectrum. These conservatives are most concerned with ideological purity. They will brook no deviation from prescribed conservative dogma. These voters are most likely to either split with the party over an ideological disagreement and vote independent, or stay home altogether.
• Second are the more pragmatic conservatives. These are people that grasp the condition of the institutionalization that long existing parties go through. A most recent example of just such a conservative is the recent IC posting of Phillip Jackson's entitled Politics 101. Phillip understands that winning elections are about gaining an advantage of political power. And that there are districts where a more moderate form of conservatism may turn the tide; providing the necessary majority required to exercise political power. These people admit what most of the rest of us won't admit to; that the major reason to win elections is to win power; because political power grants the ability to drive the future direction of the country. The overwhelming majority fall into this catagory.
• The third type is the 'Country Club' conservative. This statement may mean different things to different people so allow me to attach my personal stigma to it. These are the overly 'moderate' republicans. Compassionate conservatives that have bought into the liberal line that conservatism cannot succeed; that there is no longer room for any but 'moderate'; (read beatable) Republicans. These are the ones that have already ceded the progressive agenda. These are republicans that, for whatever reason, have decided that elections will from now on always be fought on the Left's issues and on the Left's terms. That conservatives will no longer talk about small government and individual liberty but find themselves retreating to one last pitiful rationale: that they can run the progressive left-wing entitlement state more effectively than the Left can. They are so squishy, that denied their personal favorite, they would most likely vote republican anyway; although they may hold their collective noses while doing so. A few will cross over, but not a majority
This is almost what occurred in NY-23. First of all this was a district carried by Obama in 2008 by a margin of 52% to 48%; a narrow win at best. Second; the Obama Administration figured they could get a 'twofer'. They could look bipartisan by appointing John Mc Hugh (R-NY) to an administration position, and pick off another historically republican House seat in a special election because of the President's popularity.
Due to some rather arcane rules within the State Republican Party of New York, the Republican Party's controlling faction there decided not to hold a primary. Instead they instituted the 'democratic' playbook and selected a RINO conservative candidate. The Republican Party apparatus sought to "lead" by following, and chose the extremely liberal Republican Assembly Woman Dierdre Scozzafava to run for the seat. By running a pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-deficit spending Republican; they sought to prove the democrat talking points correct. They had 'reevaluated' their position in accordance with your own criteria Ron. Unfortunately they arrived at the wrong answer.
Conservatives within the district were outraged. Doug Hoffman, a true conservative chose to run as an independent, but campaigned openly on his conservative values and never passed up an opportunity to ridicule the current Washington Administration. 96 hours before the election Dierdre Scozzafava couldn't take the heat any longer and withdrew from the race. 24 hours after that at the behest of Rep. Steve Israel, a Long Island Democrat, she actually endorsed her opponent Democrat Bill Owens over the conservative Doug Hoffman.
Granted, Owens went on to win the election; 49% to 45%, a 4 point margin. However; this race in a nutshell actually proves the direct opposite of what democrats have been saying for years. An unabashed conservative runs, without party support, in a staunchly conservative district: And after being thrown under the bus by the declared republican 'powers-that-be', still manages to close the margin to 4 points in a special election. If I were Bill Owens, I wouldn't be signing any long term apartment leases in Washington DC. Because my guess is that Doug Hoffman will return in 2010 and hand Bill Owens his head.
The lessons learned from this election are;
• A certain amount of conservative 'soul searching' is routinely required; and right now most certainly justified.
• The 'venue', or the political demographic of the district must be taken into account when selecting and supporting candidates for political office.
• In certain circumstances, a more 'restrained' form of conservative candidate may be a better match in some districts as the ultimate goal of any political party is to achieve the majority that bestows control of the agenda.
• Capitulation to the opposition almost never works
• Conservatism does work; almost every time it's tried!