March 15, 2007

How the Right Went Wrong

The latest issue of Time Magazine proclaims "How the Right Went Wrong" alongside a photo of President Reagan crying. My first thoughts, after seeing this headline on the Drudge Report, was that it was another hatchet job by this left-leaning news magazine; however, after reading it, I give them credit for really getting it right: the conservative movement, as made popular by Ronald Reagan, and in some degrees the Republican Congress of '94, has gone off track. With the 2008 presidential landscape quickly approaching, Republicans are left with few true "conservative" choices.

Karen Tumulty, author of the story, asks "What set of goals is there to hold together a coalition that has always been more fractious than it seemed to be from the outside, with its realists and its neoconservatives, its religious ground troops and its libertarian intelligentsia, its Pat Buchanan populists and its Milton Friedman free traders? " And while I don't necessarily believe that the American people have lost the goals and ideals first popularized by Reagan (low taxes, individualism, unobtrusive government, strong defense, etc), I can see how many of our neoconservative Republican politicians have.

It's important to note the difference between a conservative and a neo-conservative. One of the discussions I sat in on at C-PAC was "Conservatism 101" by ISI speaker Mark Henry. He explained the differences between the three original factions of the conservative movement, and the evolved three factions we see today. Basically, the conservative movement started in the 50's in response to the rise of Communism (and in protest of Truman's use of the bomb on Japan). There were three main factions: libertarians, anti-communists, and traditionalists.

Today, traditionalists are still around (mainly, but not exclusively, in what is called the "religious Right"), and so are libertarians (although they hover between the left and the right); but the anti-communists have become the neo-conservatives. To sum up neo-conservativism real quick: it is largely focused on a foreign policy doctrine of an imperialistic spread of democracy, and is routed in the writings of Leo Strauss. That said, neo-conservative has also been synonymous with a bigger, more involved government; something that no true conservative likes, and something that our founding fathers hated.

National security is vitally important, as is knowing how to handle the War in Iraq and the threat of Islamic fascists, but we as conservatives can't let the media decide for us who is going to lead our party. Time Magazine talks about how each of the candidates leading the party aren't truly conservative in every single way. We're not saying that they have to be; in fact, conservatism has always been filled with different ideas that often go against each other. But we as voters need to be able to choose who is the best candidate to revitalize the Republican party; just as Reagan did.

At C-PAC (and Time makes sure to point this out), Reagan's name was mentioned more than anyone else. He is the icon of the Republican party, and arguably the most successful conservative president we have ever had. But just standing at a podium and saying his name a bunch of times isn't going to get you elected. Since the election season as started so early, I see no reason as to why we have to settle on the candidates currently running. There are scads more presidential hopefuls that are slowly building up grassroots support (Brownback, Huckabee, etc), and others who are favored and haven't even announced candidacy (Gingrich).

I agree with a lot of what Time Magazine is saying about our party, but I don't believe that all hope is lost--as they seem to imply. The November elections were a wake up to many in the GOP, and I think that as conservative voters we should fight for the conservative values that we want to lead the party. The article quotes Richard Viguerie, a conservative activist and fundraiser: "'I'm not focusing on 2008... Realistically, it will probably take until the year 2016' before the movement regains anything resembling its former glory."

I don't know about you, but I'm not patient enough to wait that long.

Posted by MikeRubino at March 15, 2007 2:47 PM

Comments

Mike: I recall discussing this article briefly with you at the conference. Those of us who came of age as voters during the Reagan years were inspired to become Republicans through his inspirational leadership. I recall when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed, we had Reagan to thank for his steadfast leadership in the face of uncertainty with the nuclear arms race. The party unfortunately has drifted toward becoming aficionados of big government. In fact, the drift to the left has hurt Republicans because now most people see little difference between the parties and candidates. Giuliani, for instance, could just as easily be a Republican as a Democrat. By contrast, a candidate like Sam Brownback has strong voting record on social values to back up his candidacy. For some voters, he may be too conservative. But like Gingrich, his candidacy has inspired the party faithful to believe that someday the party of Lincoln will rise again. I don't believe the recent history of the party has done much to encourage supporters. However, we should vote our conscience after thoughtfully considering our stands on the issues of the day. My core values haven't changed and I remain a member of the party to this day. We need Reagan's legacy to inspire us: as you note, "I don't necessarily believe that the American people have lost the goals and ideals first popularized by Reagan (low taxes, individualism, unobtrusive government, strong defense, etc)." Most Americans support those views....Let's hope the party takes notice and returns to its original values.

Posted by: e. glicker at March 30, 2007 2:21 AM