(Editor's note: This is the first segment in a two part series.)
What does it mean to be a conservative? Why must the status quo not be casually discarded?
What does it mean to be a conservative? Why must the status quo not be casually discarded?
It is informative to reminisce about the presidential election of 1912, which has come to define the ideologies of the national political parties as presently constituted. The Republican Party preferred to field a losing candidate, rather than gamble on one who would “radicalize” its “traditional” (i.e. – conservative) platform. Better to lose the election, regroup and use the lawful mechanisms available in our democracy to obstruct and wait it out until the next election. Doesn't this sound all too familiar? In the 2012 national election the party’s conservative base could not bring itself to go “all in” on the more moderate ideas of its presidential nominee. This ensured President Obama’s re-election to a second term.
The election of 1912 is a case study in how seemingly impossible the task of upsetting the status quo. The Republican nominee, President Taft, the unpopular conservative incumbent, merely tolerated the futile contest, viewing former president Theodore Roosevelt’s break from the Republican Party and third-party Progressive insurgency as a challenge to “the principles of the party … the retention of conservative government and conservative institutions.” Although he doubted even T.R.’s ability to pull off a long shot victory, Mr. Taft knew he was not likely to win that election, either. He didn’t. The national election and the one following would be thrown to Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
1912 marked the first use of a phrase that would re-enter the American political vocabulary in criticism to the policies of Republican Party conservatism under the Reagan administration nearly 70 years later. T.R. had remarked at a campaign speech that “The Republican proposal is only to give prosperity to (wealthy industrialists) and then to let it trickle down.”
In the ensuing century, there can be no mistaking that the Republican Party has remained firmly within the control of an entrenched, affluent, conservative, some say reactionary base, squarely in support of the status quo. This is both sweeping as it is powerful.
The ordinary citizen who talks with five people who call themselves a “conservative” these days will surely receive five different definitions of that political term. For example, when I think of conservative, the idea is of small, frugal, debt-free government with the freedom to enjoy individual pursuits without the interference of government. That’s what Jefferson had in mind. It is the kind of conservatism that Republicans have been preaching, but have been remiss in their practice, for at least the past 40 years. The more recent variety would also add a healthy dose of militarism.
So, what is a conservative? According to Wikipedia, conservatism is defined as follows:
A more moderate definition was pronounced upon seasoned reflection late in life by the legendary Coke Stevenson, the 20th century self-made rancher beloved as “Mr. Texas” back home. He put it this way:
Proponents point out that conservatism supports the larger, desirable idea of a common culture or identity, who we are as a people. Hard earned and built with the blood and sweat of prior generations, that culture must continue to evolve deliberately, upon consensus. It must not be casually discarded. In its simplest sense, it’s an argument of order and control over chaos. The point certainly has great validity.
Consequently, perhaps, whenever it perceives an opening, the Republican Party has attempted to take measures designed to grind the wheels of progress and change to a halt, preserving the status quo or even rolling it back. Of course, the same argument in reverse can be made against its main targets: T.R.’s activist, Progressivism; F.D.R.’s New Deal; Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the civil rights movement of the 1960s; affirmative action and a woman’s right to choose, among others. The administration of President Obama and the progressive agenda he seeks to implement also lie directly within its targeted scope.
In fact, given the strength of the status quo’s gravitational pull lined up against him, it is no small wonder that President Obama has been able to make good on any pre-election campaign promises of change. This is especially true in the case of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the new law commonly known as Obamacare. This major national healthcare reform legislation is a progressive prize of historical magnitude to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. Its passage had escaped every reform-minded leader who attempted it, dating back to T.R. more than 100 years ago. Somehow, somewhere, T.R. must be smiling down upon us.
The election of 1912 is a case study in how seemingly impossible the task of upsetting the status quo. The Republican nominee, President Taft, the unpopular conservative incumbent, merely tolerated the futile contest, viewing former president Theodore Roosevelt’s break from the Republican Party and third-party Progressive insurgency as a challenge to “the principles of the party … the retention of conservative government and conservative institutions.” Although he doubted even T.R.’s ability to pull off a long shot victory, Mr. Taft knew he was not likely to win that election, either. He didn’t. The national election and the one following would be thrown to Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
1912 marked the first use of a phrase that would re-enter the American political vocabulary in criticism to the policies of Republican Party conservatism under the Reagan administration nearly 70 years later. T.R. had remarked at a campaign speech that “The Republican proposal is only to give prosperity to (wealthy industrialists) and then to let it trickle down.”
In the ensuing century, there can be no mistaking that the Republican Party has remained firmly within the control of an entrenched, affluent, conservative, some say reactionary base, squarely in support of the status quo. This is both sweeping as it is powerful.
The ordinary citizen who talks with five people who call themselves a “conservative” these days will surely receive five different definitions of that political term. For example, when I think of conservative, the idea is of small, frugal, debt-free government with the freedom to enjoy individual pursuits without the interference of government. That’s what Jefferson had in mind. It is the kind of conservatism that Republicans have been preaching, but have been remiss in their practice, for at least the past 40 years. The more recent variety would also add a healthy dose of militarism.
So, what is a conservative? According to Wikipedia, conservatism is defined as follows:
A political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of
traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in
society.
Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing
stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way
things were.
A more moderate definition was pronounced upon seasoned reflection late in life by the legendary Coke Stevenson, the 20th century self-made rancher beloved as “Mr. Texas” back home. He put it this way:
A conservative --- he’s one who holds things
together. He shouldn’t fight all
progressive movements, but he should be the balance wheel to hold the movement
to where it won’t get out of hand.
Proponents point out that conservatism supports the larger, desirable idea of a common culture or identity, who we are as a people. Hard earned and built with the blood and sweat of prior generations, that culture must continue to evolve deliberately, upon consensus. It must not be casually discarded. In its simplest sense, it’s an argument of order and control over chaos. The point certainly has great validity.
Consequently, perhaps, whenever it perceives an opening, the Republican Party has attempted to take measures designed to grind the wheels of progress and change to a halt, preserving the status quo or even rolling it back. Of course, the same argument in reverse can be made against its main targets: T.R.’s activist, Progressivism; F.D.R.’s New Deal; Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the civil rights movement of the 1960s; affirmative action and a woman’s right to choose, among others. The administration of President Obama and the progressive agenda he seeks to implement also lie directly within its targeted scope.
In fact, given the strength of the status quo’s gravitational pull lined up against him, it is no small wonder that President Obama has been able to make good on any pre-election campaign promises of change. This is especially true in the case of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the new law commonly known as Obamacare. This major national healthcare reform legislation is a progressive prize of historical magnitude to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. Its passage had escaped every reform-minded leader who attempted it, dating back to T.R. more than 100 years ago. Somehow, somewhere, T.R. must be smiling down upon us.
(The second and concluding segment in this two part series features T.R.’s views of the "true conservative," the balance of competing forces required to manufacture change and the "triumph of conservatism.")
-Michael D’Angelo
No comments:
Post a Comment