Recent
Republican and Conservative convocations have showed one general thing. Those
who pass for thinkers and leaders of these intertwined movements think they can
keep doing the same things but attain improved outcome. With the prominent
except of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, most Republicans, after sifting
through the debris of November 6, think they need new spokespeople and better
packaging.
The lone
thing standing between Republicans and the great Reagan landslides of 1980 and
1984 is them. This is a sad commentary on once noble movements. Republican and
Conservative “leaders” believe 21st Century Americans are coming up to embrace
10th Century stands on social matters and science, and blustery vague
pronouncements on government spending. Does any rational person think today’s
Republicans and conservatives stand the slightest resemblance to those who
rallied around Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? Those two icons would not
have ended in the top ten in the 2012 Iowa Caucus or South Carolina primary.
What made the
success of late 20th Century Republicanism and conservatism was not just
charismatic and eloquent candidates. After World War II, the Foundation for
Economic Education and its publication The Freeman (1946), the Intercollegiate
Studies Institute (1953), and National Review (1955) formed a triad of
scholarly forums where the great thinkers of 20th Century conservatism talked
about issues. Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Ludwig von Mises,
F.A. Heyak, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, and countless other great minds,
applied the principles of the Enlightenment (1650-1789) and 19th Century
liberalism to modern challenges. This three hundred year provenance of reason,
critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and the nature of man and his
relationship to the state formed a solid foundation for philosophical
exploration. It is tough to go wrong using John Locke, Isaac Newton, Denis
Diderot, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and America’s
Founding Fathers, as touch stones for civil discourse on the function of
government in society.
Sadly,
today’s conservative touch stones are Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh,
and Sean Hannity. The forums are soundbites on Fox News and Talk Radio. Today’s
activists came of age under George W. Bush’s NeoCon global adventurism,
theocratic government activism, and opportunistic federal spending. They view
the libertarian/conservative fusionism of Goldwater/Reagan through this clouded
lens. The Republican and conservative movements have become what Russell Kirk
once stated he despised a party of “millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious
character.”
Where are the
REAL Conservatives? Who in the present day mentions Enlightenment ideas, or
bases their policies on this noble philosophical heritage? What the Right has
now is a handful of pundits, and a disdain for those who owns any scholarly
credential. The demise of the conservatives is not a matter of “messaging” as
many on their side has claimed. It is an end of intellect. The great sages of conservatism,
from Edmund Burke to John Adams and contemporary figures like Buckley, used up
their time reading not blogs, but books. Further, they spent time writing
dissertations on them; not like today’s “leaders” who dress in their ignorance
as badges of honor and electability.
Has conventional
philosophy been lost? In the words of Kirk, citing T.S. Eliot, has “wisdom”
been lost to a vapid neoconservative philosophy of “information”?
The swap over
of ideas -- the cornerstone of philosophy and democracy -- depends upon
differing sides exchanging thoughts. It cannot consist of one side saying, for instance,
diplomacy means blowing up the United Nations building in New York, and the
other wanting to cede America’s sovereign authority to an unaccountable and dysfunctional
international body.
This explains
how the extremes have grown so far from the roots of Western political and
philosophical thought. Yet there are few of us who still think these matters
deserve consideration aside from partisan politics, electioneering, and
fundraising.
We are in a
different place now. Conservatism has been drawn into the blogosphere, the talk
radio universe, and the cable news echo chambers in which each fulfils their
own micro-targeted audience. Even “live” forums like CPAC and the National
Review Institute Summit are more forums for media soundbites than critical
discourse. Conservatives, but also all Americans, need civil forums for the point
of good governance and debate, deeply rooted in conservative principles and tempered
by liberal ones, supporting openness, and nurturing common sense and common
ground.
We write in
that mood and in the hope that both sides in our democracy regain their roots.
Conservatives, especially, must reconsider their evolution over the several
centuries, and return to key philosophical values, if they desire to stay pertinent.
Our view here is that a sturdy democracy only thrives when both sides match
each other. Today there is no balance, and we are confident that will vary.
