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
LOL, sorry. Typo. I corrected above.
Isn’t he the token “conservative” at The NY Times? It shouldn’t surprise that he’s not really conservative.
Oh, I suspect this is immortal now. Might as well change it abck.
Right, but he was with the Wall Street Journal before that, and I consider those guys very serious thinkers. I think even a little old me could ask him a few questions and he would look pretty stupid.
@ejhill and/or @blueyeti, please see to it that Tob Ling is the title of the next podcast.
Will, French and Goldberg were not excluded from the conservative movement nor the Republican Party. They left on their own in a state of pique over the nominated candidate.
They could try winning people to their side of the argument via persuasion. Instead, they chose insults, sabotage at the ballot box and a permanent hissy fit.
Those “real conservatives” were perfectly happy to let Hillary Clinton fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. What a way to make a point.
As for Rob Long, I think he’s a nice guy. I am unaware of what he did to get lumped in with the others.
One out of two presidential elections so far.
The graphic above suggested a Buddhist figure, but I think that Tob Ling makes a pretty good name for a hobbit.
Our Tob Ling might make a pretty good Samwise, come to think of it.
Very good point.
Much better than my cutesy illustration.
Snatch the pebble from my hand.
Heh. Back in the day my HS friends and I used to mock the accent whenever delivering wisdom and a good smack to the head and call each other “ass-hopper-san,” as anything between Hawaii and India was all Chinee to us.
Ah, youth!
With that admission of “racism” you will never get elected to major public office, unless, of course, you run as a Democrat.
He ran for Judge as a Democrat. He is a Democrat.
If the “playing time” is based on performance rather than just equal carve-outs, how could girls NOT lose playing time to actual-males who could out-perform most if not all of the actual-females?
Glen’s post didn’t make it to the Main Feed, but of course Jon’s started there.
Well, you lost the House in 2018, the Presidency in 2020 and the Senate in 2020. Good luck with that.
Winning means addition, not subtraction. But what did Reagan ever know? Other than being elected Governor kicking out the incumbent, getting re-elected, being elected President kicking out the incumbent and then getting re-elected, carrying 49 states.
Is it possible for me to comment without being attacked? A lot of space in this thread has been taken up with attacks on me, and my defense of myself.
From Ballotpedia at https://ballotpedia.org/Gary_Robbins:
Gary Robbins
Gary Robbins
Republican Party
Gary Robbins was a candidate for Division 5 judge on the Coconino County Superior Court in Arizona.
Career
Robbins has been a practicing attorney in Arizona for 31 years. He has handled cases in the areas of criminal law, juvenile dependencies and delinquencies, adoptions, guardianship, personal injury, and family law. For two years, he worked as a staff attorney for the Arizona Court of Appeals.[1]
2012 election
Robbins ran unsuccessfully for the Coconino County Superior Court, Division 5. He made his way onto the general election ballot after successfully running as a write-in candidate in the Republican primary, but was defeated by Democrat Cathleen Nichols in the general election on November 6, 2012.[2][3]
Um.
Is that like making “Drag Queen Story Hour” beautiful, somehow?
Do tell.
But one cracked vase doesn’t spread to the vases around it.
Political “cracks” are different.
But it’s a useful myth.
Maybe frogs don’t actually let themselves be slowly boiled to death, but maybe we will.
Revitalization might be better, except for being too long.
2022 is about to even things up and 2024 might put us ahead.
BTW, I am a Reagan fan, and definitely not one the “forget Reagan” crowd.
Support for Reagan principles and support for Trump are not incompatible. Trump was much better at implementing the Reagan vision than both Bushes, not to mention Dole, McCain or Romney.
You might be right. I am tired of arguing the point, so I will leave it with “you might be right.”
I can see now this version is needed too:
But probably not to you, personally. Certainly not like what many others are dealing with.