Conservative Soul-Searching

WASHINGTON WATCH Paul A. Brink

itself. It was a disparate movement to begin with, and what has historically brought unity amid diversity has been a series of shared opponents. For decades communism provided the foil; more recently, Saddam Hussein and “terror” have kept the family together. But as these threats It may be a little early for some PRISM become less vivid in the American imagreaders — after all, Obama has been in ination, conservatives are left casting about office for only nine months or so, and for a new enemy, and, thus far, Barack even healthcare reform remains on the Obama hasn’t emerged as a suitable distant horizon! And yet it might not replacement. Missing from the conservative creed, be too early to start wondering when American conservatism is going to get however, is a clear account of what conservativism is for.The challenge conserits act back together. There can be little doubt that the vatives face is unique: how to put forward conservative movement in general and a coherent platform for state action while the Republican party in particular are remaining committed to the idea that experiencing some sort of malaise. A the state should be doing less to begin quick survey of conservative media out- with.Yet without such a forward-looklets, journals, and think tanks reveals a ing agenda, conservatives cannot avoid good amount of soul-searching under- appearing shrill and reactionary. Again way, and there’s reason to hope that some we discover that without a vision the people perish — or, at least, they descend of it will reveal interesting results. One common theme is the lost to shouting matches outside town hall opportunity that was the George W. Bush meetings. But American politics needs conpresidency. Though conservatives can point to a few important successes — servatives — if only because there is so most notably, two Supreme Court much in America worth conserving. At appointments — other items high on the a more basic level, democracy succeeds conservative to-do list remain unful- only when principled debate exists and filled. Abortion, immigration policy, the when representatives of these views are budget deficit, education policy, and able to make their positions known. A Medicare are only a few areas where con- democratic politics should be a messy servatives not only made little progress, politics. Accordingly, the declining health but in some cases also experienced rever- of the conservative voice should be a sals. Meanwhile, wars in Afghanistan and subject of concern for citizens across the Iraq and the more nebulous “war on political spectrum. Is there a way forward in this enviterror” were justified on grounds unfamiliar to many conservatives — Wilsonian ronment? In the absence of a suitable neoconservatism, some have called it, enemy, might there be a banner around referring to the curious blend of American which libertarians and the religious right principle and power politics that under- could rally together, where free-enterprise business types and “crunchy cons” pinned the Bush Doctrine. Indeed, the turmoil that resulted from could find common cause? Articulating such a strategy is not the Bush Doctrine makes clear how the chief challenge facing conservativism is straightforward. However, one approach more intellectual than it is political and might be to consider more precisely how goes to the very heart of the ideology we go about deciding which traditions or

PRISM 2009

practices are worth conserving. Besides bringing together conservatives around a common practice, if not common conclusions, making explicit these criteria might help us avoid the danger of a generalized, often romanticized, affirmation of the past. Meanwhile, criticism of specific government proposals might become more successful, especially if conservatives can demonstrate how their positions are not based upon anti-government bias but rather upon a well-considered and comprehensive political vision. Ideally, part of this renewal of conservatism’s foundations will include a revisiting of the movement’s problematic relationship with classical liberalism. In general, American conservatism will be most successful when it unhinges itself from a reflexive attachment to certain liberal moorings. This will be particularly true for Christians who see themselves as conservative. The old phrases such as “limited government,”“free enterprise,” and “strict constructionism” don’t have the same ring politically that they once did. But more important, how such commitments square with a biblical Christianity remains unclear. Fortunately, there are other old possibilities that may become new again (e.g. “civic virtue,” “social capital,” and “civil society”), and their relationship to Christianity might be more clearly drawn out. All this suggests that American conservatives have some theoretical work to do. Fortunately, while there’s a lot of work, it’s good work. And for those more pragmatically oriented, there’s a payoff: There is nothing so practical as a good theory. Conservatives would do well to make the most of their time in the political wilderness to dig deep, think hard, and reexamine and renew their basic commitments. ★ Paul A. Brink teaches political theory and European and Canadian politics at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass.