Is conservatism good for America?

Home Opinion Is conservatism good for America?
Is conservatism good for America?

buckley

Michael Lucchese asks (“Bring Trump voters back into the GOP,” April 7), “What should conservatives do when we wrest our movement away from national populism and Donald Trump?” But is the conservative movement worth saving in the first place?

Lucchese supports William F. Buckley’s method of making conservatism “respectable” by purging “extremists.” But that entails shifting the political center leftward as ideas on the right are marginalized. Since the left retains its extremists, thus making the bulk of its members appear moderate by comparison, the result is continual retreat by the right.

Such retreat has characterized conservatism for decades, as ideas that were once unthinkable become tolerable, then acceptable, and finally unquestionable, such as no-fault divorce and “same-sex marriage.” Today’s conservative defends yesterday’s victories of the left, accusing those to his right of various isms and phobias (Lucchese lists “racism, sexism, xenophobia,” and “quasi-fascism”) for the thoughtcrime of even countenancing arguments once printed in National Review — such as critiques from the early 90s of the 1965 Immigration Act — before the “respectable” right deemed them, well, unrespectable.

Today, it’s not uncommon for the respectable right to dismiss a person or proposal as “not conservative.” But this tactic proves weak against someone who argues that his proposals are good for Americans’ security, prosperity, and happiness. Exit polls suggest that two-thirds of Republican primary voters in various states support frontrunner Donald Trump’s proposed suspension of Muslim immigration. Of this proposal, conservative Paul Ryan said, “This is not conservatism.” Seventy percent of GOP voters in his state replied through polls, “So what?”

If conservatives want to keep Americans in their movement, they should explain how their movement actually benefits Americans. Too often, they defend policies like endless war and mass immigration as beneficial to foreigners, not citizens.

When conservatives do mention citizens, they usually disregard the common good and pander instead to leftist-approved identity groups while dismissing — to borrow Lucchese’s term — the “Other,” namely, rural whites.
Thus, National Review’s November 2 cover story was about how “Republicans can win black voters.” Last month, they published an article titled “The Father-Führer,” excoriating “white working class” Trump supporters whose “dysfunctional, downscale communities … deserve to die.” Its author, NR correspondent Kevin Williamson, calls people on Twitter “peckerwood,” a derogatory term for poor whites. Just another day’s work for the respectable right.

Granted, Lucchese opposes such rhetoric, contending that conservatives should follow the lead of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, and welcome back voters who have taken to “national populism.” But this presumes that such voters are akin to treasonous insurrectionists, when the betrayal actually runs the opposite way: Conservative politicians and pundits have chosen respectability over their fellow citizens.

Conservative politicians and pundits have chosen respectability over their fellow citizens. They seek to preserve not their nation and its people, but instead their loser movement, a watered-down leftism clothed in hackneyed references to the Founders.

Does the movement merit being saved? Conservatism means purging on the right, capitulating on the left, and always, always shifting leftward. All a conservative has to do to be shunned by his fellows is to stand firm.

The conservatives of tomorrow will purge you as a closed-minded, bigoted “extremist” for supposing, say, that men who call themselves women might not actually be women, and perhaps shouldn’t be allowed to look at girls in the women’s locker room. But don’t worry. Whatever might become of America, at least conservatism will remain respectable.