Authentically Conservative Talk Radio  

Maybe it’s the overall,general sense of dissatisfaction with the current President that brought out somany candidates so early in the 2008 campaign.  Whatever the reason, with so many choices and so much time,I’m taking more interest than ever in trying to evaluate the candidatescurrently in the competition.  Butsomething interesting is happening on my way to November 4, 2008—I’m evaluatingmyself more intensely than the candidates.  In looking for a candidate who I believe can best lead ourgreat nation I am finding that I really must begin with “what do I believe?” 

I’m conservative. But doesbeing “conservative” make me “a conservative?” I think not, and herein lies myproblem.  Since the advent of thecolor television and the computer, we’ve all been reduced to labels -- “BlueStates,” “Red States,” “liberals,” “conservatives,” “democrats,” and“republicans,” as if each of these could be used interchangeably, so that today“a conservative” equals “a republican.” But is “a conservative” necessarily “conservative? 

The distinction becomesincreasingly important when the Republican front-runners, Mitt Romney, RudyGiuliani and John McCain, have some very non-conservative values.  Can I—will I--support a candidate whosevalues differ so greatly from my own?  

The “Republican equalsconservative” paradigm is giving authentic conservatism a bad name.  David Greenberg wrote in the NY Times(How Bush Stayed True to Conservatism, May 15) “….so few were the obstaclesthat conservatism was able to run amok. The result—in the assessment of notjust liberals but also other observers—has been disaster: a mess of a war, thefailure to plan for Hurricane Katrina, the erosion of the church-state wall,widening inequality, the loss of civil liberties including habeas corpus, andscores of other ills…This was the fruit of modern American conservatism.”  Notwithstanding Mr. Greenberg’s faultylogic (that’s an issue for another article), he pins the problem on“conservatism” not Republicans.  

Additionally, David Brooks writingin the New York Times (April 29, Grim Old Party) about the stagnation of theGOP says, “As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown into acollection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility.”  While this may well true of the RepublicanParty, it is not true of conservatism. In fact, authentic conservatives simply make up one of many groups thattoday find a home in the Republican Party. But the collective movement of thesespecial interest groups does not define conservatism. 

This very close identitymakes it difficult for authentic conservatives to disagree with Republicanpolitics. We might be aligned with the Republicans on a great many things, butthe current usage of the word puts authentic conservatives in the uncomfortableposition of feeling like traitors if we stand opposed to Republicanpolicies.  A recent Newsweekarticle profiled the descendents of Presidents Eisenhower andRoosevelt--presidents more in touch with authentic conservatism than any we’vehad since Ike left office--noting their dismay with the Republican Party andtheir willingness to consider not supporting a Republican in 2008.  Are these people traitors to “modernAmerican conservatism” or Republicanism or are they steadfast adherents toauthentic conservatism? 

Another dynamic at work isthe name calling talk radio.  Manywho generally agree with Republican politics often find themselves in generalagreement with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Laura Ingrahamand other hosts of “conservative” talk radio (or shall we call it RepublicanTalk Radio?).  Moreover, asfrequent listeners, they hear the way the hated Democrats are belittledwhenever they dare to call and voice an opinion.  I believe many Republicans have come to fear being identifiedwith Democratic politics in any way, lest they should find themselves scornedby Republican talk radio listeners who are parroting the entertainment theyhear on the airwaves.  Talk radio,in this way, has served to further polarize America by devaluing opinions thatare not the deepest shade of red. 

Mr. Greenberg’s dismay overconservatism is a theft and abuse of truly conservative ideals.  However, being conservative myself, Imust acknowledge my tacit facilitation of the theft since I have not defendedthe word “conservative” with the proper vehemence.  I have allowed differing factions to borrow this term inorder to promote themselves only to discover that their use of the word hasworn it out and rendered it meaningless. So the time has come for authentic conservatives to take our adjectiveback and restore the word to its previous luster. 

Consequently, conservativepeople must ask some hard questions such as: “Being conservative, must Isupport the Republican-led conflict in Iraq?” If I decide that I am a conservative or a Republican, almost certainly.  (Just ask Senator Hagel how Republicansagainst the conflict are received.) But if I conclude that I am authenticallyconservative, my options open up. In 1800 John Adams angered his Federalist Party leadership by notsupporting a war with France.  TheFederalists saw to his ouster but President Adams knew that he had done theright thing by avoiding a disastrous war. Upon his return home to Massachusetts he stated, “Great is the guilt ofan unnecessary war.” 

Conservative people generallyeschew war as wasteful—a liberal use of our most valuable resources, mainly ourcitizens.  But conservative peoplealso know that in order to conserve the higher values in a community sometimesan investment of blood is required, and this may be just such a time (this ismy position on this particular conflict in the Middle East).  However, conservative people alsounderstand that discretion is often the better part of valor and conservatism,resting confidently on the successes of the past and learning from previousfailures, has nothing to prove by wanton displays of strength and power.  It is liberalism, not authenticconservatism, which uses resources today, in order to protect today, withoutregard to the future.  

Even intelligent,authentically conservative thinkers will disagree on the necessity of theconflict in Iraq.  My point todayis not to answer that question, but this one: are you conservative or are you a conservative? If the former, then I contend you have significantly more latitude inthe expression of your conservative views than the Republican Party’s threeleading candidates provide you. Thoroughly evaluating the many Republican candidates for the Presidencyin 2008 may help you discover an authentically conservative candidate outsideof Mr. Giuliani, Governor Romney or Senator McCain.  Furthermore, I think it’s time that authenticallyconservative people pay attention to what’s going on in the Democratic Party aswell.  If someone as traditionallynon-conservative as Mr. Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, we may beforced to look for authentically conservative credentials of the Democraticcandidates in order to find the least objectionable candidate. 

Authentic conservatism isbridge building and desirable in both blue and red communities. A candidate whounderstands this and builds his or her vision for America in 2016 (when twoterms would be concluded) on these authentically conservative values stands agood chance of healing perceived, polarizing differences in our country andrestoring America to its esteemed position as the legitimate leader of theglobal community.