« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“Conservatism” must die….

... and rise again under a new, more accurate moniker!

Following the election, the editor of this blog, Erick Erickson pointed out that he had predicted almost a year to the date that it happened that if Mitt Romney were the Republican nominee, Conservatism would die and Barack Obama would win re-election. It’s a little disheartening to see Speaker John Boehner, the defacto leader of the Republicans in Washington making that prediction come true by purging conservatives out of committee positions. But a “death” of “conservatism” doesn’t have to mean a death of the values and principles that we hold dear. Keith Koffler of Politico has a very interesting, must-read piece out today where he argues that we should drop the label “conservative”:

If conservatives want to begin the process of refashioning their image, they can start out with the most fundamental rebranding technique of all: changing their name.

That’s, after all, what the left did. In the two decades since Ronald Reagan turned the term “liberal” into a kind of epithet, liberals have chosen to drop it and call themselves “progressives.”

At first, it might seem like a rather jarring prospect. Conservatives have proudly worn that badge through the 20th century. It made sense too, as the Democrats and some Republicans (I’m looking at you Teddy Roosevelt!) began guiding America down the road toward socialism, “conservative” became an appropriate term. We were the people who wanted to hold back all of the “progressive” change that was happening in the early 20th century, we wanted to take America back to it’s roots: the Constitution, freedom, liberty. We wanted to conserve what made America great. “Conservative” became a badge of pride through the 20th century with great leaders from Senator Robert Taft leading the conservative Republicans in congress, to President Calvin Coolidge, Senator Barry Goldwater, and President Ronald Reagan. And those are just some of the elected officials, not to mention countless other men and women who made the case in  various other forms. America experienced unparalleled prosperity under Presidents Coolidge and Reagan, only to be thwarted by weak kneed moderate Republicans following their tenure. But that was the 20th century. Unfortunately, most of the Republican presidents either sat idle while progressive Democrats socialized our country if not even assisting them in doing so in the 2000′s.

Socialism is now the norm. No, it’s not the obvious cradle to the grave entitlement state of European variety, but anyone can receive some form of  government assistance now in America from birth to death. It is now the norm. It is the status quo, there are few people in our country who know or remember anything else but this. And unfortunately most people expect it to be there.

The term “conservative” no longer fits us, it’s actually not who we are. Anything our forefathers in the conservative movement were trying to preserve is gone. There are social conservatives, but they are only part (a large and important part) of the movement. Look at the definition of conservative does this accurately describe us? (from Apple’s Dictionary)

con•serv•a•tive |k?n?s?rv?tiv|adjective holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense ‘aiming to preserve’): from late Latin conservativus, from conservat- ‘conserved,’ from the verb conservare (see conserve).

Does reforming major entitlements like social security and medicare sound cautious to you? Yes, we opposed ObamaCare, but our proposals for health care reform were far more of an overhaul than ObamaCare was, except it would have actually made health care cheaper and more accessible. Does a fundamental restructuring of our tax code to spur economic growth sound like something that’s “conservative”?

The fact is, we have ceased being the conservatives. But we still behave like we are the conservatives. A conservative mind set is on the defensive, it’s protective, it obstructs. It is not offensive, innovative or facilitative. We’re holding on to dear life for things we actually should be fighting for because they’re not there anymore.

You may say it’s just a word, but language matters. Words matter. We need a term that inspires us to fight again. Mr. Koffler has a suggestion and I can’t say I disagree with him:

And now it’s time for the right to discard the term “conservative” and start describing themselves as … liberals.

That’s right, liberals.

If Democrats are going to leave “liberal” lying around, conservatives should immediately scoop it up and make it their own. Because it was theirs to begin with.

He’s right. Prior to the 20th century, people with our philosophy were called liberals because pretty much everyone had a “conservative” understanding about what America was all about. “Liberal” stemming from liberty, is an economic philosophy that emphasized less government involvement, lower taxes, and less regulations. It wasn’t just an American philosophy, it was a philosophy that was quite popular all over the world. In fact the center-right parties of many countries around the world are called the “Liberal Party” – the prime example that I can think of off the top of my head is in Australia.

Shedding “conservative” and embracing “liberal” would do a few important things for us. It would get us to start thinking like a “liberal” – fighting for what we believe rather than holding onto something that’s long gone. It would reinvigorate  us to remember what our party was founded on – liberty, freedom, and opportunity for all people no matter their background. And it would make us fresh to people who believe conservatism is stale.

Of course, it would be awkward to have people who blasted the term “liberal” for years suddenly embrace it, so Koffler suggests we start by calling ourselves “classic liberals.”

Whatever we do, we can not abandon the principles of our party. We have to articulate the prosperity they bring so that we can win elections.

COMMENTS

  • reddog53

    In a war for the “low information” voter’s attention, grabbing liberal off the trash heap would not be a great idea. And while you have a point, I would not want to ‘start thinking like a liberal’ in any sense of the word. Trying to ‘rebrand’ ourselves as “classic liberals” is an inversion of this weekend’s post on “New Coke”…let’s stay away from allusions to that disaster if we can.

    We are still conservatives in the sense that we are trying to hold fast to the principles contained in our Constitution.

    We are still conservatives in the sense that traditional values form the foundation of what we think of as a just and free society that works.

    We are still conservatives in the sense that we want to preserve the rule of law and the principles of equal justice instead what is going on today.

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

    This notion of “re branding” everything has steadily increased in the last decade, most likely as a result of the plethora of marketing majors graduating from college — the old saw about everything looking like a nail when all you have is a hammer — rather than as a proven path to make things better. I’ve seen lots and lots of ‘rebranding’ — city slogans, team logos, corporate logos, but I’m not convinced that they accomplish anything meaningful. As an exhibit, I offer the USA today ‘re branding’ logo – a plain blue dot. Seriously?

    I get your larger point and support much of what you say…but I can’t wrap my mind around becoming a liberal — and I think that the vast army of Independents and “low information” voters would be confused by the attempt.

    If we must rebrand, then I suggest something along the lines that contrasts liberty and freedom with statism and centralized planning. That is the essence of the fight, and should be the essence of our message.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Aye.

      We are Conservatives, and it is that Conservatism that leads us to “(neo or classical) liberalism” and reform, rather than the other way round. We wish to conserve tried and tested common-sense Constitutional principles- it is that which leads us to limit government, fight for values, and get Washington under control and on a tight leash, goals which would have little meaning if treated as abstract concepts as a taditional label of “liberal” would connote. This is why we don’t just talk about natural law and God-given rights, we also talk about how they are manifested through the Constitution and legal custom.

      I don’t think we need to rebrand at all, unless it is to present ourselves as “reform Conservatives” or something.

      And, yes, aside from being wrong in its implication, it would also be confusing.

  • http://parsoned.blogspot.com parsoned

    yeah….no. A new term, okay. Liberal? Not in a thousand years.

  • taluslope

    Yea, as a liberal/progressive/socialist/… (I don’t know what to call myself anymore) Dem (but I feel like someone should save me from the wicked path of socialism), something I can agree entirely with.

    For example: I am a defender of social security. It’s been around since before I was born, I paid into it, I should get something out of it. While social security was once a liberal program, I now feel like a conservative defending it. I’m trying to defend the status quo.

    • commonsenseobserver

      The though of Democrats trying to claim that they are conserving anything is laughable.

  • Rich

    The fiscally conservative and socially agnostic faction which you seem to be describing technically already has a label in the Reformists of the Reform Party. Not that I’m endorsing them as a valid third-party but it’s interesting that many of those calling for a greater focus on fiscal issues and less on social issues are basically suggesting the Republican party adopt the Reform party’s platform.

    • commonsenseobserver

      Doesn’t the Reform Party oppose free trade?

  • WmCraig

    It wasn’t because they changed their name that they have achieved this success. It was because they became “radicals”, as Alinsky called them. If that turns you off you need to read the book. Radicals are people not willing to sit by and watch, radicals are people not willing to write about problems. Radicals, acording to Alinsky are people that get involved to change things. It is only our own fault that the only radicals are socialist radicals.

    The reason that the progressives dominate is because they learned the first lesson of local government. It is about doing things. You get your trash picked up, your street cleaned, and schools. They understood that at the basic level there is a need for government in the need for community services. So they went in and identified constituencies that were not well served, that lacked a voice. They gave them a voice at a price, the price was socialism.

    Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison were all radicals. They gave the people a voice too, and that voice was liberty. But it was a hard fought battle, one that was fought against an overwhelmingly power opponent. Today the weapons are different, they are patronage, influence and economic security. But the battle still has to be fought,

    Changing the name won’t make a difference. Getting into the ring to go head to head with the establishment (the progressive establishment by the way) is the only way to turn back the tide of oppression and release the power of liberty in the big blue cities. Until that happens there is nothing we can do to gain the oval office. They have to make a big mistake. And if Obama isn’t a big enough mistake, that could be a very long time if we are waiting for them to give it up.

    • reddog53

      Agree that the organizers may have given them a voice, but the results are lacking. Detroit, Philadelphia and other cities served by the radicals have largely gotten worse, not better. It shouldn’t be hard to convince those living there that things could and should be better, but somehow it is.