A good decade ago, in a college political science class, we read this essay penned by Harry Jaffa, with a key memorable passage:
The end of the Cold War has also brought an end to the remission of the disease of moral relativism that is corroding the life of western civilization. It would certainly seem that the salvation of the West must come, if it is to come, from the United States. The salvation of the United States, if it is to come, must come from the Republican Party. And the salvation of the Republican Party, if it is to come, must come from the conservative movement within it. And the salvation of the conservative movement, if it is to come, must come from the renewal and reaffirmation of the principles of the American Founding, embodied above all in the Declaration of Independence, such a reaffirmation as happened in the events that led to the election of Abraham Lincoln.
As someone in class quipped, since few so well understood and appreciated Lincoln’s affirmation of our nation’s Founding principles as the great Straussian sage of Claremont, essentially the salvation of the West must come from Harry Jaffa. Tongue-in-cheek, to be sure.
The academic debates within the conservative movement a decade ago seem to have lost much of their flavor in our current economic and political environment. Quite simply, people are looking for solutions. Bold, fiscally conservative reforms are needed to rescue our governments from themselves.
Soren Dayton is right: The true laboratories for The Next Right’s successful reforms are coming at the state level. You have to go there – if not to read what Dayton writes – at least to view the New York Times graphic showing the devastating effect of deficits on numerous state governments.
Dayton writes:
There are opportunities here for Republicans to fix the brand. We can demand no tax increases. Perhaps more importantly, we can demand cost-saving reforms in government services. The leaders and winners of these fights will be the ones who will have earned their place as party leaders in the future.
Once again, the salvation for our party and our future leaders don’t reside in Washington. The real action will be in the state capitals. Outside of stopping some bailouts, the real action will reside there.
A broad but principled coalition is needed to bring about such reforms. Sparing the citizens of the United States from the harmful scourge of government debt, as a way to help save the West more generally, should be the primary goal. Reclaiming the Republican brand is a secondary benefit.
If the GOP wants to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility – successfully achieved through creative solutions – here and now is the opportunity for Republicans in the Colorado statehouse and others across the country. A good place to start? Financial transparency.
The alternative to getting the job done is unthinkable. We need more of “the constrained vision”, if it’s not already too late.
Purty good post thar, Ben. I haive ohnly a commint ‘r two.
It’s true-att most folks ‘r simply lookin’ fir solutions, but that dohn’t render th’ academic debates ‘mong conservatives of no account. I believe modurn conservativsm is in a period of ideological – and even existential – crisis raht now. We need t’ haive a debate, first of all, about wut conservtism IS, cuz frankly speakin’, I dohn’t thank-att most folk ‘mong th’ right-leanin’ of th’ “center-right” know, seein’ as they seem to cornfuse conservatism with Reaganism. The Gipper shore ‘nuf gave conservatism a needed shot in th’ arm, but th’ cure didn’t take. Much-a what ol’ Ron gave with th’ right haind he took away with th’ left (no pun intended), surroundin’ hisseff as he did with advisors whose conservative credentials were suspect. It wuz th’ Reagan administration which, fir instance, became th’ breedin’ ground of neoconservatism, somethin’ that wuz t’ give the “Reagan Revolution” th’ kiss-a death. That th’ Regagan Revolution died a-bornin’ is evidenced by th’ POTUS chain-att came outta it: Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Juan Mequeno. The leftward turn in the GOP from 1980 t’ th’ present day is evident t’ anyone with eyes t’ see. Not only that, but some “conservative” notables are now sayin’, in th’ aiftermath of th’ 2008 election, that th’ ohnly hope for th’ “conservative” movemint is – you guessed it – t’ move it t’ th’ left. In some places, this is called “progressivism”. How it kin hope t’ retain the “conservative” label is a-course anyone’s guess.
This is why we over here ohn the paleocon side say thar ain’t no real difference ‘tween th’ two major political parties. Both are liberal; one’s just further down th’ “progressive” road than th’ other-un is. It’s time for th’ GOP’s conservatives t’ take stock tharfore, ‘n aisk theysevves whether or not conservatism’s future lies with th’ GOP. What’s more, they gotta start lookin’ back into history, cuz that’s wut conservatives by definition ‘r supposed t’ do. And history didn’t begin in 1980, or even 1964. Jaffa is right in notin’ that our analysis has t’ go back much further thin that, ‘n he’s right that the so-called “Civil War” was a decisive event in conservatism’s history. His ohnly problem is-att he picked th’ wrong guy. Weren’t nuthin’ “constrained” by th’ “vision” of Lincoln. He ain’t called the “American Caesar” by historians fir nuthin’, and he ain’t praised by th’ likes of Hugo Chavez ‘n other statists ohn th’ left fir nuthin’. Lincoln stands in a lohng line-a folks whose vision wuz quite unrestrained. The progression is quite natural: Lincoln; Wilson; FDR; LBJ; Nixon; the Bushes ‘n they neocon Brahmins. The GOP is truly th’ “party of Lincoln.” Is-att sumthin’, however, that is supposed t’ commend itseff t’ a true *conservative*?
I thank not . In his book Revolt from the Heartland: The Struggle for an Authentic Conservatism, Joseph Scotchie shows th’ true conservative lineage in American history: the anti-Fed’ralists ‘n they Bill of Rights which were intended t’ keep th’ new constitutional order from trampellin’ individual rights and state sovereignty. (Alas); Jefferson; Randolph; Calhoun; th’ leaders of th’ Southern Confed’racy; William Jennings Bryan; Robert Taft; Goldwater. These are th’ men t’ whom conservatives shud be lookin’. ‘N Harry Jaffa oughter be ridden outta town ohn a rail.
Lassly, yes, th’ states are the key. But it ain’t simply a matter-a reformin’ th’ GOP ohn th’ state level with a view t’ward regainin’ power over thar at Rome on the Potomac at some point in th’ future. It is the Empire, th’ “Levithian”, ‘n the GOP’s love fir it which lies at th’ center of that party’s ideological ‘n existential crisis. Or, to put it another way, Republicans need t’ learn wut it means t’ be republicans.
But color me skeptical regardin’ th’ possibility of th’ GOP’s reform. The redemption of th’ Founding Fathers’ “constrained vision” will take much more than that. It will take very bitter medicine indeed, if’n ye aisk me.
I was unable to trudge through that long comment and make coherent sense out of it. I’ll leave it to one of my intrepid readers to do the translation work. I did catch a few bits, though.
But William Jennings Bryan? Are you serious? Have you ever read the 1896 Populist Party platform? http://www.iath.virginia.edu/seminar/unit8/popplat.htm
Hope your surgery went well.
“I was unable to trudge through that long comment and make coherent sense out of it. I’ll leave it to one of my intrepid readers to do the translation work.”
‘L, att wuz easy. Ye ain’t had no trouble trudgin’ through my commints before. See, I suspect ye did see it’s coherence, but that ye simply cain’t bring yeseff t’ concede that us paleocons are right ’bout wut conservatism really is. Because t’ do so wud be fir you to admit that your principal hero was a *statist* and *centralist* par excellence, ‘n that yir claim t’ bein’ a true conservative is tharfore a dubious one. I suspect yir “intrepid readers” will git that point, even if ye cain’t. (Or won’t.)
“I did catch a few bits, though. But William Jennings Bryan? Are you serious? Have you ever read the 1896 Populist Party platform?”
Yes. Ain’t you aware-att traditional conservatism has an agararian, populist streak, and that this is why a paleocon writer such as Scotchie might have included Bryan in the family? After all, if the unbelieving lefty Chris Hitchens kin be so popular with neoconservatives cuz he sangs a good song ohn the GWOT, a fortiori Bryan’s Middle Americanism can rang true with conservatives. Once again, Ben: conservative history didn’t begin in 1980.
“Hope your surgery went well.”
Thanks. It did.
But I want to be crucified on a cross of gold…
By th’ way, Ben: wutta ye doin’ with all th’ comparisons between Lincoln and Obama we seein’ these days?