Redefining Conservatism in the Obama Era:A Lesson for Republicans

13. November 2008 by Tony Magana.

The foremost “conservative” of our time, the late William F. Buckley, was asked in an interview in 2007 by Bill Steigerwald to define conservatism.  His answer was

“Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition. Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition — the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties.

That’s the most general definition of conservatism.”

This elegant description of conservatism is a message often forgot and misunderstood by so many. Since Mr. Buckley first starting writing about what he called conservatism in the 1950s there have been several alterations to the original concept. Modern conservatives are divided into three schools. The traditional libertarian conservatism of William F. Buckley, the traditional conservatism of the late Russell Kirk, and the neoconservative movement of William Kristol.  Although they share common features they have significant differences that can allow for major disagreements about how to approach an issue.  The first issue the Republican Party has to deal with in the Obama era will be to understand the differences in these concepts.

Libertarian conservatism took parts of old European traditional conservative principles and combined them with libertarianism. Some tenets included small government, fiscal responsibility, extreme personal freedoms as long as they were not infringing on others, protection of private property, and a limited foreign policy.

Russell Kirk did not believe that libertarians had a role to play in conservative thought.  His idea of conservatism more closely followed the European model of conservatism that there was a destiny to be fulfilled.  Tradition, religion, culture, and custom were each inter-related and interdependent on each other. For society to go forward all the components of this foundation must be preserved.

The Bush Presidency was marked by the predominance of neoconservative thought over the other forms of conservative ideology. Instead of the believing that societal and world problems might eventually be resolved spontaneously over time if basic principles are met, neoconservative advocated an active interventionist rule in world affairs. This is why many traditional and libertarian conservatives opposed the Iraq war.  Domestically the funding of billions of dollars in programs to intervene in society by neoconservatives explains how the deficit ballooned.

To those who say conservatism failed in America they are right and they are wrong.  The Bush Presidency represented a major shift away from the major themes of the libertarian conservative model of Conservative government. The traditional conservatism of Russell Kirk lead to the Great Depression and the neoconservatism of William Kristol lead to the failed Bush Presidency. Republicans seeking public office need to return to libertarian conservatism.

Ronald Reagan’s Presidency was much more closely identified with the William F. Buckley style of conservatism then the current neoconservatism. Although he often stated that “government is the problem” he also said the government had to do well at those things it was required to do.  Republicans need to understand that small government is much different than no government.

The Constitution of the United States specifically grants the Federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. This implies that regulation is not a bad word in and of itself. Regulation of commerce to control union power to prevent another General Motors disaster and regulation of corporate executives to protect the private property rights of retirement account stockholders are both within the realm of conservative actions. American corporations need to return to what they were originally envisioned. Corporations have two basic purposes, to provide a continuing service or product in an economically competitively manner and to provide a reasonable return to their stockholders who provide them capital.  Republicans can take the lead of laws providing for transparency in corporate governance removing the restrictions on stockholders rights, making boards and executives more accountable to stockholders, passing laws making executive stockholders liable to minority stockholders such as in California state law, and making dividends more important than capital gains.

The Constitution mandates that the Federal government shall promote the general welfare which clearly implies that broad powers are given to make a better health care system. Instead of Republicans sticking their head in the sand screaming laisse-faire they need to get to work. If they do not want a big government system then they need to spend the time and effort to really examine building a brand new system.  Privatizing health care without totally revamping the health care insurance industry will sure fail.  Government leaders must stop making false promises that the overall costs of health care are going to go down due to technology use or due to prevention. Everyone has police or fire services and so it should be with health care.  Excessive medical costs for useless administrative functions, worthless expensive medical treatments, inflated liability costs, and expensive redundancy in hospitals are just some of the areas that should be addressed.

Our libertarian roots should steer us away from contentious social issues which may infringe upon personal freedoms. Forcing employers to screen their employees for legal immigration status is a violation of conservative principles. Similarly if two people want to form a legal union of the same sex our libertarian values would say fine. On the other hand protection of the unborn, the elderly, consumers,children,employees, and others is imperative.

We must link freedom and personal responsibility together. We should not stop a motorcycle rider from wearing a helmet if he so chooses, but it is unfair to ask the public to pay taxes for his lack of personal responsibility. User fees or taxes for high risk or irresponsible behaviors like smoking, eating fast food, and gas guzzling vehicles for example should take the place of public taxation for the consequences.

The Republican Party has failed in its attempt to close public schools and convert everyone to a private school system. Education reform offers them the chance to develop ideas which will appeal to those Americans who want a better life for their children. Almost one third of American children never graduate from high school.  Although testing and vouchers may have a role, recent research that shows that developing the concept of community and parent interaction in public schools such as is present in private schools can dramatically improve schools holding power against attrition. The Republican Party has an opportunity here to form alliances with teachers and educators instead of the current confrontation.

Most importantly, conservatives must begin every discussion with ” based upon my principles  I have this specific plan.. “and not just be negative “know nothings.”

Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years.He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Posted in politics | Print | 1 Comment »