A Conservative Crack-Up?

…Or just all grown up?

It is a fact of political life that political parties and movements are defined far less by what they agree on that on what they oppose. Concern, fear, or, in the case of the modern leftist, frothing hatred, are what bind movements together. And it is a common feature of the evolution of political movements that they achieve the greatest coherence as they struggle to make inroads against an established enemy. Once they have achieved a modicum of success, once they get fat and happy, the things that they are for begin to gain greater importance to them, and stresses appear as groups conflict over their differing goals. This is as inevitable as Spring following Winter.

This is exactly what is happening today over the Harriet Miers nomination. American Reaganite Conservatism has made it to the big leagues. We have reached the point where disagreement over what we want is greater than common worry over what we oppose.

One of the key components of the Reagan coalition was a large and diverse group of traditionalist citizens, with a significant evangelical Christian component, that I shall call “substance conservatives.” These folks would not have necessarily been considered “conservatives” at all prior to the 1960s. They were just regular folks, living regular lives, some Democrat, some Republican, some prosperous, some poor. But when the radical libertinism of modern liberalism reached into their lives and began rearranging the social landscape without so much as a by-your-leave, the peasants revolted. The things that this group of conservatives are after are policy-goal oriented. They want to stop the social and cultural devastation. They are, if you will, outcome-based. They are appalled by Roe v. Wade primarily because it legalized abortion, rather than because it was a constitutional monstrosity. And their goal is to reverse the legalization of abortion more than it is to undo the constitutional precedent. I think President Bush truly represents this group. I believe he is one of them. His model of Compassionate Conservatism fits like a glove with the goals of this set of conservatives. It matters what we get done. It matters not so much how we get there. I think the Miers nomination makes sense as a nomination of this group. Having a “dependable vote” makes sense from the perspective of changing policy outcomes.

On the other side of this intramural debate are the “purist conservatives,” those who have toiled long in the vineyards to make modern American conservatism a force to be reckoned with. Tending more toward the Catholic and Jewish, and more northern/blue state, this set is most concerned with the integrity of the conservative movement from top to bottom. They tend to be process oriented. Although they share many of the same social concerns as their substance-conservative brethren, they recognize the paramount importance of maintaining the integrity of the system. They oppose Roe v. Wade first and foremost because it is a constitutional horror, secondly because it is horrid and immoral social policy. They believe that bad policy can be cured one issue at a time. Bad process contaminates everything. Opposition to Miers makes perfect sense for this group. They see her as not understanding this critical distinction.

Obviously, these are a set of very broad generalizations, but I believe they accurately reflect the dynamics at work. Even leaving aside the other components and allies of modern conservatism (paleos, Libertarians, neocons, etc.) this squabble makes it clear that conservatism as a movement has reached maturity.

Not only am I not especially worried by the arguments among conservatives over Miers, I think they are a good thing. One of the defining strengths of American conservatism is that it has had to fight upstream all the way to the top. It had to fight against the culture. Against the media. Against the academy. At every step it has to stop, and argue, and explain, and debate. The result has been a honed sense of what it stands for that is far superior to modern liberalism. Liberals had the intellectual/cultural playground to themselves for decades, and let their skills get dull as a result. Today, indisputably, conservatism is the movement that knows what it stands for. Liberalism at best knows what it is against.

The biggest threat to conservatism is that we will be spoiled by victory. It ain’t all that much if you think about it, but both houses of Congress, the White House, Rush and Fox News are a heck of a long way from where we started. If we adopt a “why can’t we all just get along?” philosophy, it will be a short conservative ascendancy.

The Miers kerfuffle is a sign that we haven’t gotten fat and happy just yet. We need more of these. Conservatives are in, but not of, the Republican establishment. There will never come a day when we are truly welcomed there. Professional Republicans will almost always choose political positioning over principle. We need to keep them honest. Conservatives of all stripes must raise their voices as often as possible, about as many things as possible. Not just to keep our less astute friends honest, but to keep ourselves sharp. If we ever stop challenging ourselves we will end up in the 70s again before we even know what is happening.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: