Which Way The Right
Resist Finger-Pointing
Posted: November 13, 2012
In the wake of a disheartening defeat, particularly when victory clearly seemed possible, a certain degree of angst, self-analysis (as long as it’s not self-loathing), and, yes, even some finger-pointing is understandable. That, alas, is human nature, however much we dislike it or wish to dismiss it.
So, too, is it human nature — they’re liberals, after all — for the left, in all its condescension, to offer conservatives advice on how best to get with the program and re-enter the so-called “mainstream.” That happens whenever the left wins. The Maureen Dowds, Froma Harrops, and Jules Witcovers of the world come out in force.
But what conservatives should resist, with whatever verve and strength remains after a dispiriting Tuesday, is the temptation to engage in a proverbial circular firing squad. Of particular concern to us is the number of supposed conservatives who want true-believers and Republicans alike to tack left — on illegalimmigration particularly — and stop nominating (or even being) “purists.”
And what constitutes a “purist” these days? Someone who subscribes to the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, limited government, and private charity, and believes wholeheartedly in the time-honored promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Time was, we thought, when said promise, said virtues were not seen as “purist,” but remarkably mainstream. Is that no longer the case? God truly help us if it is.
Even in the most opportune of times — i.e., when we’re at peace and the economy is humming — conservatism is not an easy sell because it expects and even demands self-responsibility in return for liberty. It assumes that, short of authentic calamity — when a social safety net of private as well as public origin can break the fall — Americans genuinely want to make their own way in this world, and make it on their own.
In this sense, conservatism as a philosophy and approach to life may be better suited to what we choose to call a “nation becoming” — one still striving to reach its potential — as opposed to a “nation being.” But conservatism also implies a prudent maintenance of the time-honored, the traditional, what works.
So, does the outcome of this recent election suggest these verities no longer hold sway, that we’ve totally abandoned the course assumed by that “nation becoming”? That we — like Greece, Rome, and the British Empire before us — are not immune to forces of decline and, eventually, decay?
Advancing such questions is what such a status-quo election decision as that rendered last week genuinely elicits. Answering them, in all honesty and seriousness, is what conservatives, steeped in history and introspection, are required to do. That’s their nature.
Then, they must act accordingly — wisely and, if need be, boldly.
So, too, is it human nature — they’re liberals, after all — for the left, in all its condescension, to offer conservatives advice on how best to get with the program and re-enter the so-called “mainstream.” That happens whenever the left wins. The Maureen Dowds, Froma Harrops, and Jules Witcovers of the world come out in force.
But what conservatives should resist, with whatever verve and strength remains after a dispiriting Tuesday, is the temptation to engage in a proverbial circular firing squad. Of particular concern to us is the number of supposed conservatives who want true-believers and Republicans alike to tack left — on illegalimmigration particularly — and stop nominating (or even being) “purists.”
And what constitutes a “purist” these days? Someone who subscribes to the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, limited government, and private charity, and believes wholeheartedly in the time-honored promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Time was, we thought, when said promise, said virtues were not seen as “purist,” but remarkably mainstream. Is that no longer the case? God truly help us if it is.
Even in the most opportune of times — i.e., when we’re at peace and the economy is humming — conservatism is not an easy sell because it expects and even demands self-responsibility in return for liberty. It assumes that, short of authentic calamity — when a social safety net of private as well as public origin can break the fall — Americans genuinely want to make their own way in this world, and make it on their own.
In this sense, conservatism as a philosophy and approach to life may be better suited to what we choose to call a “nation becoming” — one still striving to reach its potential — as opposed to a “nation being.” But conservatism also implies a prudent maintenance of the time-honored, the traditional, what works.
So, does the outcome of this recent election suggest these verities no longer hold sway, that we’ve totally abandoned the course assumed by that “nation becoming”? That we — like Greece, Rome, and the British Empire before us — are not immune to forces of decline and, eventually, decay?
Advancing such questions is what such a status-quo election decision as that rendered last week genuinely elicits. Answering them, in all honesty and seriousness, is what conservatives, steeped in history and introspection, are required to do. That’s their nature.
Then, they must act accordingly — wisely and, if need be, boldly.