CPAC is always an interesting mix of people, and in general it’s a good (though not exactly productive) event for conservatives. But the division among the ranks this year seems more pronounced than usual, certainly owing in part to the new-found prominence of the Tea Party and the ever-emboldened Libertarians.
Donald Trump slammed Ron Paul. Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin may or may not be having a feud. The Heritage Foundation and others declined to attend altogether due to the participation of GoProud (a prominent group of gay conservatives). Go Proud fired back, with the help of such big guns as Andrew Breitbart and Grover Norquist. Meanwhile, the Paulites booed everyone while Tea Partiers presumably sidled up to the bar in victorious glee.
But conservatism does not have a unity problem. It has something much worse: a principles problem. Sure, there is division across a wide range of groups that label themselves conservative, but that comes from not having a firm set of well-thought out principles.
I can’t help but think that the Big Tent mentality, so often touted, is the wrong way to go. Not because the conservative movement doesn’t want lots of diverse members, but because as the tent expands, certain principles of true conservatism fall by the way side.
Furthermore, concessions are made in order to wrangle political power. We bring in socially liberal politicians in order to take advantage of their fiscally conservative stances, and vice versa. And , slowly but surely, we’ve begun to forget what exactly it means to be conservative.
Conservatism in general, and the Republican Party in particular, is focused too much on politics. For some time now they have changed platforms and principles and ideas along with the whims of popular politics. But politics are fickle, and politicians even more so. And pretty soon, those lofty principles developed by William Buckley, Russell Kirk, and others, based on a line of thinking passed down from Aristotle, Aquinas, and Augustine (as well as some other smart guys whose names don’t start with A) became a nearly forgotten memory.
First and foremost, conservatism is a philosophy, a set of values; it is the Western tradition. As Kirk said, it is “the negation of ideology.” And when philosophies and values are bent and excepted for political maneuvering, we get where we’re at today. The Big Tent has been stretched thin, and rain is beginning to leak in. Conservatives are not unified, that much is certain, and how can they be when there is almost nothing left for them to be unified about?
But where will this set of principles come from? Who will promote it? The Tea Party has tried admirably, but their platform is limited, and besides, I have on my desk three separate business cards of three separate men claiming to be the founder and head of the Tea Party. The Neo-Cons…well, they’re the Neo-Cons. The Libertarians are principled, to be sure, but their few principles are largely prohibitive of the broader set of principles, values, and morals that conservatism should be.
The principles are already there. They have been for thousands of years; the banner having been taken up most recently in the middle of last century. But in order to gain root and flourish they have to be championed by those outside of politics, by those not subject to the whims of government, by those who can ponder deeply, and convey persuasively the principles that make humans human, without being pulled and swayed by party politics.
What we don’t need are more politicians (they can’t even be called Statesmen); more old guys with winning smiles and impressive haircuts or (the new fad) attractive rural housewives turned firebrands. And we certainly don’t need more talking heads, working up the ire of the average voter.
Rather, we need men of ideas and principles; people to direct and inform our politicians. We could use some new Buckleys and new Kirks.
