Looking Ahead By Looking Back

Many people, inside and outside of the conservative movement are asking questions about where it is going, and whether or not it is on the verge of collapse.

Historian and author George Nash addressed the “Uneasy Future of Conservatism” at the Heritage Foundation on June 19th. The event was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, an organization that seeks to provide college-aged students with an understanding of America’s founding principles.

“In 2006, conservatism is middle-aged,” said Nash, “and on the right, there is a sense that political success has not been matched by change.” The government it seems is still growing larger, despite the fiscal restraint promised early on.

Still, despite squabbles between factions within the movement, Nash does not think the sun is setting.

“There are perennial risks and inherent struggles, but a total breakdown seems unlikely because conservatism has become institutionalized, there are signs of cultural renewal, plenty of ‘missionary’ students are coming out of universities, and the coalition seems likely to remain because outside forces that held it together still exist primarily,” said Nash.

The coalition Nash referred to was the coming together of five groups over time that built the modern conservative movement and led to the Reagan revolution and the mid-90s Republican takeover of Congress.

“The movement has never been one voice,” said Nash. The first group [in chronological order] was the classical liberals (now libertarians) who viewed FDR’s New Deal America as the path to socialism, Nash said. The libertarians made free market ideas popular again by talking about them. Eventually they would lead to the Reagan tax cuts.

The second faction was made up of anti-totalitarians like Russell Kirk who, Nash explained, rejected moral relativism and embraced traditional values and natural law.

Next came the militant, religious anti-communists who viewed the battle between communism and capitalism as the all-important battle to be fought and won, according to Nash.

As Nash explained, each sect had their own antipathy for 20th century liberalism: libertarians despised the welfare state, traditionalists believed liberalism was a philosophy that was eroding American ethics and “creating a spiritual vacuum,” and anti-communists hated the rationalistic secularism of liberalism and viewed it as incapable of fighting communism.

Even then, there were tensions between the groups, Nash said, but a fusionism held them together so that political action could be accomplished.

It wasn’t until about the 1970s that two other groups joined the movement that brought Reagan to power.

Former liberals turned conservatives, or neocons, began joining the ranks with public defections, said Nash.

“This helped destroy the assumption that liberals were the only intellectuals,” Nash said.

The final group that formed the conservative movement was the religious right which rose out of grassroots support from people who believed the U.S. was in a state of moral decline.

“Reagan performed an ecumenical function by giving each group a seat at the table,” said Nash.

We have, as a coalition, faced battles within and have survived, Nash said.

The movement is, however, facing “perils of prosperity.” The greater specialization, niche markets, sibling rivalry and movement awareness are all evidence of that, said Nash.

It is the fact that the movement has always had its differences of opinion that leads Nash to think the movement can continue to prosper if “we remember Reagan and we do not fractionalize or retreat.”

Some thought conservatism would collapse with the Kremlin, but it did not and now, Nash said, conservatism has a new sense of mission in the need for national security and in the war against radical Islam.

Julia A. Seymour is a staff writer for Accuracy in Academia.