Boss
Take a Memo:
For a brief moment last week I was saddened by the latest news. Once a stalwart Conservative icon, Newt Gingrich had announced the apparent demise of Conservatism. As the trendy new Nationalist-Populist movement takes hold and former voices of Conservatism such as Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham fawn over their Chosen One, Donald Trump, it was certainly sad news to hear.
Then I realized, this is simply politics and political rhetoric. Conservatism is not dead, it can't die because Conservatism is truth. It may be on the back burner for the time being. It may have suffered a great setback in the elections of 2016. It may be sorely lacking a strong articulate voice that can carry the message to the people in a way that appeals to them personally.... but it's not dead.
The task that lies ahead for Conservatism is to first, educate people, then appeal. There is a strong and contemptuous misunderstanding that has been promoted by the left as well as elites on the right over what exactly Conservatism is. This has to be addressed and corrected before Conservatism can again step forward in the political realm.
Foremost among the many misconceptions is the understanding of Conservatism as an ideology and not an overarching philosophy. Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism and Populism are ideologies. They are ideologically-driven sets of ideas. Fundamentally, Conservatism is not an ideologically-driven set of ideas, it is a philosophical adherence to certain general principles and wisdom acquired through experience and history. It includes many ideas and has many various ideological leanings. Social Conservatism, for example, is a sub-group of Conservatives who have a specific ideological social agenda. Libertarians are another sub-group of Conservatives with a totally different ideological social agenda. They both reside under the general philosophy of Conservatism but they have very different ideological social agendas.
Conservatism is the philosophical counter of Radicalism. So it shouldn't be viewed as "Conservative vs. Liberal" but rather, "Conservative vs. Radical". Liberalism is an ideology which falls under the philosophy of Radicalism. This is why you can sometimes find people who are Conservative yet they have socially liberal views but you seldom find socially liberal ideologues who are Conservatives.
True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. In essence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact.
So how do we define Conservatism? Many of us Conservatives will point to Ronald Reagan as the "prototype" but when you actually evaluate Reagan's record, he was a big spender and ran up the national debt. Granted, he had to work with a Democrat congress but his adherence to true conservative principles were sometimes compromised for the sake of progress. I think the last truly conservative president we had was Calvin Coolidge. I doubt any of us remember him.
Progressives have been so successful because "the people" tend to want an expansive government that "does things for them" instead of being more pragmatic and measured with regard to solutions. But the problem we're now facing as a result of 70-80 years of progressive politics, is a nation in massive debt with no real way out. This is where Conservative philosophy runs into it's biggest obstacle. We know, inherently, this cannot continue but how do you reduce the size and scope of government while the masses scream for more expansive government?
Those of us who've studied history realize what happens when nations overload themselves with massive debt. The Weimar Republic is a classic example. A nation has to be able to handle it's debt obligations for the foreseeable future or we reach a point of no return. This seems to be where we are coming to with our nation. There are people on both left and right who sincerely believe we'll never pay off our national debt, so why worry about it? That's really a dangerous collective mindset to have because we know from history what the results will ultimately be and they're not pretty.
Then I realized, this is simply politics and political rhetoric. Conservatism is not dead, it can't die because Conservatism is truth. It may be on the back burner for the time being. It may have suffered a great setback in the elections of 2016. It may be sorely lacking a strong articulate voice that can carry the message to the people in a way that appeals to them personally.... but it's not dead.
The task that lies ahead for Conservatism is to first, educate people, then appeal. There is a strong and contemptuous misunderstanding that has been promoted by the left as well as elites on the right over what exactly Conservatism is. This has to be addressed and corrected before Conservatism can again step forward in the political realm.
Foremost among the many misconceptions is the understanding of Conservatism as an ideology and not an overarching philosophy. Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism and Populism are ideologies. They are ideologically-driven sets of ideas. Fundamentally, Conservatism is not an ideologically-driven set of ideas, it is a philosophical adherence to certain general principles and wisdom acquired through experience and history. It includes many ideas and has many various ideological leanings. Social Conservatism, for example, is a sub-group of Conservatives who have a specific ideological social agenda. Libertarians are another sub-group of Conservatives with a totally different ideological social agenda. They both reside under the general philosophy of Conservatism but they have very different ideological social agendas.
Conservatism is the philosophical counter of Radicalism. So it shouldn't be viewed as "Conservative vs. Liberal" but rather, "Conservative vs. Radical". Liberalism is an ideology which falls under the philosophy of Radicalism. This is why you can sometimes find people who are Conservative yet they have socially liberal views but you seldom find socially liberal ideologues who are Conservatives.
True Conservative philosophy takes a slow measured approach to solving our problems and addressing our issues. It carefully weighs all aspects of both "sides" of an argument and reasons a "moderate" resolution. In essence, it is the "moderate" view as opposed to the extremist view. The advantage to this is self-evident, it tends to keep us from really screwing things up. Radical extremism often results in knee-jerk emotive responses that cause more problems than they fix because the ramifications and consequences are often not considered until after the fact.
So how do we define Conservatism? Many of us Conservatives will point to Ronald Reagan as the "prototype" but when you actually evaluate Reagan's record, he was a big spender and ran up the national debt. Granted, he had to work with a Democrat congress but his adherence to true conservative principles were sometimes compromised for the sake of progress. I think the last truly conservative president we had was Calvin Coolidge. I doubt any of us remember him.
Progressives have been so successful because "the people" tend to want an expansive government that "does things for them" instead of being more pragmatic and measured with regard to solutions. But the problem we're now facing as a result of 70-80 years of progressive politics, is a nation in massive debt with no real way out. This is where Conservative philosophy runs into it's biggest obstacle. We know, inherently, this cannot continue but how do you reduce the size and scope of government while the masses scream for more expansive government?
Those of us who've studied history realize what happens when nations overload themselves with massive debt. The Weimar Republic is a classic example. A nation has to be able to handle it's debt obligations for the foreseeable future or we reach a point of no return. This seems to be where we are coming to with our nation. There are people on both left and right who sincerely believe we'll never pay off our national debt, so why worry about it? That's really a dangerous collective mindset to have because we know from history what the results will ultimately be and they're not pretty.
