American conservatism is all a mess. Obamania played only a small part in the tidal wave of liberal euphoria that swept into Washington this January. The real culprit for the GOP’s astonishing abdication was conservatives’ disregard for their own tradition.
George W. Bush came into power eight years ago calling himself a “compassionate conservative,” and for much of his administration words like neoconservative became big. The failure of these definitions turned conservative into a dirty word. Today, it’s not clear which of the c-words is less acceptable in polite conversation.
But just as the liberalism that’s emerged from the New Deal, the Great Society, and all the other feel-good monikers of the past doesn’t really square with the traditional definition of liberal, neither do any of the words used to describe Bush really have much to do with conservatives.
Conservatism has a long and elegant tradition espoused by thinkers from Edmund Burke and John Adams to Russell Kirk. These men believed that the weight of tradition meant something. They didn’t oppose all change; Adams was one of the first and greatest champions of American independence. They did, however, know that caution is key.
They believed that institutions that have existed for a long time have done so for a reason. They understood that while sometimes traditions must change along with people, it is a mistake to abandon without consideration things that have served humanity well for years.
Today, self-labeled conservatives have forgotten their intellectual forefathers. On some issues, they have no respect for tradition. Real conservatives have long held that law – especially constitutional law – is one of the great restraining institutions protecting the minority against the prejudices of the masses. Burke and Adams would have been aghast at an administration that ignored international law by invading a sovereign nation without direct provocation, wrote off the Geneva Conventions as “quaint,” and trampled all over the Constitution.
Similarly, those who pander to values voters don’t understand that conservatism doesn’t think society needs to freeze in some long ago utopia. While they counseled caution, the great conservatives favored slow change to stasis. After all, morals and institutions didn’t just appear overnight; they developed over time to meet the needs of a complicated world. What worked 2,000 years ago may not work today. To survive, conservatism must adapt.
It’s time for conservatives to reconsider their stances on major social issues. At a time when AIDS is ravishing one continent and infecting the rest, teaching proper condom use may not be so evil. Homosexuals haven’t proven themselves to be perfect parents and partners; neither have straight people. With children needing a loving home all around the world, it may be time to rethink the definition of a family.
At its best, conservatism is an inspiring philosophy. It takes pride in what has come before and carefully considers the challenges tomorrow offers. It has a faith in humanity to develop institutions worth preserving while acknowledging that sometimes things change. It believes in what people have done and will do.
George W. Bush and his cohorts embarrassed those of us who have long respected the great conservative thinkers. They neither comprehended the philosophy’s complexity nor contributed to its legacy. Their defeat this past November proved the American people weren’t fooled.
No one has stepped in to fill the void since then. It doesn’t appear that anyone from the political class intends to, either. If conservatism will be reborn, it will need a new infusion of ideas. It will need a grass roots movement. It seems to me that a college campus is the perfect place to start.
Nathaniel French is a sophomore theater studies and math double major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
