Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We Are No Longer Conservatives; We Are Restorationists
Conservatives have long struggled to define the term “conservatism.” This makes sense since it’s always been less a political ideology than a life philosophy. Perhaps even an attitude.
When asked to define conservatism, Abraham Lincoln replied, “Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?”
William F. Buckley updated his answer for the mid-20th century, framing it in opposition to liberalism. In other words, an anti-ideology. In his book Up from Liberalism (1959), Buckley declares conservativism is “freedom, individuality, the sense of community, the sanctity of the family, the supremacy of the conscience, the spiritual view of life.”
A half-century earlier, G.K. Chesterton didn’t so much define the term as identify the action it requires.
All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. [Orthodoxy, 1908]
It isn’t enough to “stand athwart history, yelling ‘Stop.'” Conservatism requires intentional, aggressive work to evaluate the firehose of proposed changes, then promote the good ones and destroy the bad.
Or, as Reagan put it, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Reagan was prophetic. These days, conservatives spend a lot of time telling younger generations what it was once like to be free. We speak of lost liberties and wonder how best to restore them.
Here’s the plain fact: there’s no need for conservatism when there’s little left to conserve.
That’s why, over at The Federalist, John Daniel Davidson declared, “We Need To Stop Calling Ourselves Conservatives.”
Conservatives have long defined their politics in terms of what they wish to conserve or preserve — individual rights, family values, religious freedom, and so on. Conservatives, we are told, want to preserve the rich traditions and civilizational achievements of the past, pass them on to the next generation, and defend them from the left. In America, conservatives and classical liberals alike rightly believe an ascendent left wants to dismantle our constitutional system and transform America into a woke dystopia. The task of conservatives, going back many decades now, has been to stop them.
In an earlier era, this made sense. There was much to conserve. But any honest appraisal of our situation today renders such a definition absurd. After all, what have conservatives succeeded in conserving? In just my lifetime, they have lost much: marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years, the First Amendment, any semblance of control over our borders, a fundamental distinction between men and women, and, especially of late, the basic rule of law.
We have conserved a few things — gun rights, red-state economic policies, religious liberty (for now) — but it’s hard to argue with the main thrust of Davidson’s assessment.
The right isn’t conserving much but desperately trying to restore our freedom, our family, and our constitutional order.
Words mean things, and in the modern age, so does branding. I agree that “conservative” has outlasted its accuracy, but we need to call ourselves something. To that end…
We are no longer Conservatives; we are Restorationists.
We seek not to conserve the role of tradition in our society but to restore tradition to its rightful place.
Similarly, there are no national borders left to conserve; they must be restored.
The family is shattered and we must reintroduce this cornerstone of civilization. (That includes gender norms promoted from the dawn of time.)
Free speech must be placed back in the academy, workplace, and civil society.
All of this is work. Hard work. As such, it requires all of us to join the effort; neighbors, business leaders, teachers, and our government.
This is no longer the time for Conservation. On to Restoration.
Published in Politics, Religion & Philosophy
And is poised to vote for even more.
With all due respect, Trump is doing his level best to run non-Trumpy candidates out of the party, like Jeff Flake, John McCain, Liz Cheney, and Lisa Murkowski. You can’t be surprised when people who have been run out of the party refuse to support Trump.
My question to you is who would you agree to as President if it isn’t Trump? DeSantis. Fine by me. Kemp. Even better. Just not Trump, the person who sought to drive out anyone who disagreed with him.
Only if the candidate is Trump or an Election Denier endorsed by Trump.
I am an American first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third.
I don’t see the big loss with the highlighted ones.
This isn’t my bag, but didn’t Flake more do it to himself?
Hasn’t this thread been hijacked enough? Back to the subject at hand.
Your just-so story doesn’t hold water.
This is a great post. And the comments were also great. I added my two cents agreeing with the post, and the usual suspects piled on trying to force me out of the conversation. I resisted.
My question to the usual suspects is if it is possible for you to allow me to agree with the post and to agree with you, without trying to drive me out of the conversation?
Winning politics is the art of addition, not the art of subtraction.
I suggest that you consider agreeing with others when you have common ground, instead of insisting on purity.
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
Try winning without us.
Agreed. Will you allow me to simply agree with the post without trying to drive me out of the conversation?
Entirely the wrong question because my vote would be based on policy and ideas. Voting for someone based on hate or spite for some other person is childish and irrational.
I don’t “hate” Trump, I fear any candidate whose principle is “Either I win, or you cheated.” Policy and ideas are great, but if the individual is so corrupt that they will cling to power by any means necessary, they have to go.
Like, maybe, trying not to run Trump-endorsed candidates out of the party, and maybe actually VOTING for them instead of being a prig?
You mean that kind of insistence on purity?
Physician, heal thyself.
Try saying something original about public policy.
You’re not very good at the big picture are you?
You need to listen to Breitbart on Sirius XM for a couple of years.
Drew, your choice is to either try to drive me out of the conversation (good luck with that) or exercising a bit of discretion and not hijacking the thread as you referred to in your Comment #95.
Can we both agree with the premise of the post?
You are free to respond to my actual comment instead of delivering yet another non-sequitur.
The subtext of the post is that conservatism has failed. For the work of restoration to succeed, one essential element is to defeat those who made it necessary by causing conservatism to fail. Most of those people were within the Conservative movement.
Absolutely true.
The standard-bearers of conservatism, inc. conserved nothing. And it’s telling that so many of them now work for Democrat outlets and spend their days excoriating conservatism.
There needs to be a house-cleaning.
You know what? It’s a beautiful day.
Will you stupid people please stop feeding the troll?
Or maybe stop attacking me and trying to run me out of the conversation, or the movement.
They conserved the Deep State, open borders, corporatism, and Obamacare.
Supporting the same people and expecting a different result is irrational.
That is the danger. As an apparent target of your “house-cleaning,” I note that I haven’t left.
Successful politics is the art of addition, not subtraction.
Not arguable, especially Obamacare.
You proudly support Democrats and only support Democrat-adjacent Republicans like John O’Dea and Adam Kinzinger.
You cannot be simultaneously an advocate for Restoration and an outspoken supporter of those actively destroying that which needs to be restored.
Actions speak louder than words.
Thus endeth the lesson.
How did you make that about you?
Can we get back to the post and what we agree upon?
I’ll take that as a “no.”
A Restoration Manifesto should have some specific and inspiring goals. I would start with a few.
Restore Our Civic Institutions – Public institutions are rife with corruption, incompetence, and partisanship. There should be zero tolerance for public employees who behave unethically. Every Government institution needs to be purged, razed, and those few that are necessary reconstituted with strict limits and mission focus.
Restore Our Systems of Education – Public schools have failed. Students are being indoctrinated, not educated. Public schools needs to be reorganized and purged of political influence. Non-Public alternatives should be accessible to all income levels.
Restore Our Borders – Sovereign nations have every right to control who enters and leaves their territory. The borders of this country require control with physical, technology, and human enforcement until entry without permission is exceedingly difficult.
Restore Our Free Market — End corporate monopolies and de facto monopolies. Break-up “too big to fail” banks until they become small enough to let fail. Enact restrictive trade policies against countries the don’t play fair and are hostile to the interests of the United States.
I like it.