A Theory of Proto-Conservatism
For my generation, issues of identity have become central to the modern political discourse. It is perhaps the defining problem of our time: figuring out how to coexist peacefully when our religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations and our own politicians, seem determined to divide us. Given the weighty expectations of certain identity groups, even from themselves, it can become exceptionally confusing to come to terms with who you are and what you stand for. This is doubly so when you are buffeted from every direction by people telling you how to think, how to speak and how to behave in every waking moment.
It’s hard. It’s hard being black. It’s hard being a Muslim. It’s hard being a Republican in a deep blue university in a deep blue state. It’s even harder being all those things at once. When being conservative means being routinely panned or regarded as the personification of all that is the wrong with the world, it’s tempting to just throw in the towel and succumb to the incessant chipping away of your individuality. In the rush to embrace diversity in every nook and cranny it can be stuffed into, liberals have ignored the one place where it predominates: the Republican Party.
Generally, I don’t like to waste time discussing Donald Trump in serious settings but his ascent to political stardom is illustrative: the white working class base that has propelled him into the lead for the Republican nomination this election cycle is a group that directly contradicts the liberal perspective of the GOP: old, white, moneyed and out of touch. Yes, the party leadership is gentrified, but it is that same leadership, the “establishment”, if we are to rely on cliche terms, that is feeling the backlash of decades of turning a blind eye to the concerns of its diverse base. Thirty-five years of pursuing a neoliberal, neoconservative and nativist agenda has culminated in a seismic chasm opening up between the suits in Washington and the electorate.
The truth is in the numbers. This didn’t begin with Donald Trump, he just turned a glaring floodlight onto the issue. Latinos and Blacks, the two most coveted demographics for any national politician, were once dependable GOP voting blocs. President George W. Bush enjoyed their support as recently as the 2004 presidential election. Let’s not forget that, despite its stumbles, this remains the party of Lincoln. Even Clinton-era New Democrats had to shift towards the right in order to appeal to the broader electorate in what remains a largely center-right nation.
Political affiliation these days, though, at least at the grassroots level, is no longer a matter of ideology, but a matter of survival. The issues that matter most to the majority of voters are not abortion, gay marriage, taxes or the second amendment. Voters are worried about an intimidating job market, complicated by globalization and immigration, tepid wage growth, income inequality, privacy, national security and the issues that directly impact them. High-minded ideological debates are far from the minds of these voters. Sure, the national debt seems a bit high to them, but their credit card debt is probably more daunting. Yes, they’re a bit worried someone might be trying to take away their guns, but they’re more worried about the people trying to strip down their Medicare and Social Security.
I’m not really sure what the GOP stands for anymore. Motivated by the legacies of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, I’ve called myself a Republican for as long as I’ve been politically conscious. But the Republican Party began a transformation into something different long before I was born, sparked by Barry Goldwater in the 1960s and cemented by Ronald Reagan in the 80’s. This neoliberal, neoconservative consensus has dominated American politics for the past three-and-a-half decades, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans have controlled the White House, Congress, or, dare I say it, the Supreme Court. This right-ward shift has become the new normal, and its genesis can be found in the disintegration of FDR’s New Deal coalition in the late 1960s.
Delving into the niceties of neoliberal economic policies or neoconservative foreign policy is an academic exercise for another time, but it is critical to assess the outcomes these policies have delivered for the electoral base they were allegedly meant to pander to. Free trade and free enterprise were meant to create jobs and grow the “economic pie” so that everyone could become wealthier. This “trickle-down” effect never materialized however, and wealth has concentrated with the top 1% and the jobs have been shifted overseas by that same 1%. The defense of religious freedom, an admirable goal, has turned into the aggressive imposition of religious values on the prevailing socio-cultural consensus. Immigration reform, meant to ensure that people are entering the United States legally rather than illegally, has turned into a referendum on immigration altogether, and this in a nation that prides itself on its patchwork cultural background.
Conservatism at its core is a “live and let live” philosophy; one that rejects radical change, just as the Founding Fathers did when they authored the Constitution to resist political revolutions and the “tyranny of the majority” as foreseen by John Adams, and later Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill. This is where the insistence on small government, going back to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the Democratic-Republicans, comes from. Government overreach started the American Revolution; there was no way in hell the Founders would allow it to rear its head here.
When it comes to economics, the government is expected to establish a regulatory framework to ensure the fair and orderly conduct of business, and from there to back off and let things run their course. When it comes to foreign policy, the ideal approach is non-interventionist, and yet not isolationist. Domestically, the government’s role is to to establish order, safety and security, and to safeguard civil liberties and the rights of minorities. Private concerns such as abortion or marriage are arguably outside the scope of legislation. Conservatives are not (or at least should not be) in the business of telling people how to live their lives, conduct their business, or attempting to flex our muscle to spread our values abroad.
As a fierce defender of capitalism, a traditionalist and a man of faith, I am unabashedly both economically and socially conservative. Yes, I am heterosexual, and yes, I would not consider abortion an option were I an interested party, but I see no dictate in the Constitution that others espouse my values or beliefs. Ever since the Realignment, it seems that Republicans have not only strayed from this path, but they’ve broken with it altogether and culturally redefined conservatism as something it is decidedly not.
Ask any foreigner and they’ll tell you that they’re utterly perplexed by American concepts of liberalism and conservatism. To them, the American left appears moderate if not center-right and the American right are so far to the right that they must be wrong. As with our football and our measurements, things are just different in America. When it comes to our bipolar politics, by and large, I don’t believe there’s any particular difference in ideology. The desirable outcomes are universal: a healthy, growing economy replete with jobs and high wages, a safe and secure nation free from threats either foreign or domestic, the elimination of poverty and disease, and the maintenance of civil liberties. The divergence is a matter of approach: big government vs small government, the welfare state, interventionist vs isolationist foreign policy, and so on and so forth.
In the countless hours I’ve spent thinking about this issue, I’ve come up with a bit of a theory: it’s one that I’ve developed through my own experience working in and leading organizations with very human problems. In management and in governance, leaders have to address both the health of their institutions and the health of their constituency. To achieve a sustainable mix, we need to achieve a “healthy balance”. It seems to me that this idea superimposes quite nicely onto the modern Democratic/Republican approaches to politics. The former focuses almost entirely on the health of the constituency, while the latter focuses too much on the health of institutions. To emphasize one at the expense of the other is the surest path to failure and this is reflected in the fact that regardless of who has been in power, neither party has realized an enduring positive impact, legislatively or culturally.
All this calls into question whether the Republican Party is even particularly conservative, at least in the classical sense. I fully embrace classical Republican values, and I refuse to let my party be hijacked by those whose only thought is for the ballot box and a cushy office on Capitol Hill, the White House, the Pentagon or wherever else. Contrary to what politicians seem to believe at times, the universe does not revolve around Washington, DC and the GOP seems to have been lost in the vortex of pandering to corporate and political interests.
It’s time we returned to the original meaning of conservatism, a “proto-conservatism”, if you will, rather than pursuing a ruinous neoconservative agenda at home and abroad. It’s time to live and let live and it’s time for conservatives to recognize that we should be treating people the way we want to be treated. Let’s forget about gay marriage (the Supreme Court has settled this already anyway); let’s forget about abortion (is it that important in the grand scheme of things?); let’s come to the table on gun rights and religious liberty (and the limitations of both). Let’s focus on jobs and wage growth, on sensible immigration and education reform, on a palatable environmental policy, on a prudent national security agenda and sustainable healthcare. Let’s make sure our veterans get the attention they deserve, that race relations are improved and eventually reconciled. I’m sick of being painted with a red brush and I have no desire to paint others with a blue one. Our goals are the same; we just need to figure out how to get there.
Compromise, negotiation and incremental reforms are integral to conservatism. Protecting civil liberties, encouraging civic engagement and limiting government overreach should be our core causes. I wish we would stop the posturing and the snarling and the sniping and return to civilization where we can actually get to the business of hashing out solutions to the most pressing problems of our day. This isn’t a call for bipartisanship; but a recognition and affirmation of the obvious: our problems can only be solved by working together and not dismissing each other out of hand. If we can get to that point, the rest will follow. The political landscape is vast and bumpy, but it is traversable. Unfortunately, that requires not only open-mindedness but also sensibility, a character trait that seems to be in short supply these days.
