Defining Down Conservatism

The values which conservatism seeks to preserve are timeless—ideals of individual freedom, equal opportunity under the law, and market-based competition—but what I would call the Modern Age of conservatism really began in 1964, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater and the normalization of the Republican Party as the nation’s major conservative party. It brought the Founding-era ideas of classical liberalism into the 20^th century, rejuvenating them after decades of nearly unanswered assault by progressives, and largely codified what it meant to be a conservative. Conservatives, overall, supported a limited government of enumerated powers, as defined by the clear text and meaning of the Constitution; a strong national defense; and a respect for free enterprise. This general definition changed somewhat over the succeeding decades, most notably with the addition of the Religious Right to the conservative coalition, but stayed basically constant through the Reagan and Clinton years.

To be sure, there have always been arguments about what exactly defined a conservative, and who exactly got to define such things. But a generally agreed-upon definition remained in place until the presidency of George W. Bush, when some conservatives gradually began to believe that a “conservative” policy was whatever a Republican president defined it to be. Medicare expansion became conservative. Harriet Miers became a conservative Supreme Court nominee. Increased federal spending and a strengthening executive branch became key to “conservative” victory, as long it was a Republican president doing those things.

When Barack Obama took office, conservatives retreated and reassessed. Many—though not all—recognized their mistake in putting party allegiance ahead of principle. Many recommitted to the conservative vision espoused by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Again, there were differences over the exact definition of that vision, and who precisely defined it, but these differences seemed minor while liberals controlled the White House.

Which brings us to today. The Republican Party has now nominated a man who never misses an opportunity to blast free trade, who says that Planned Parenthood “does wonderful things”, who openly discusses the possibility of withdrawing from NATO, and who says of the nation’s many problems, “I alone can fix it.” A vision of constitutional, limited government this is not.

But yet many of Trump’s backers attempt to defend it as the very embodiment of conservatism. They attempt to shape principle to conform to the short-term agenda of a political party and a single man, forcing the principle to fit the candidate, rather than forcing the candidate to adhere to the principle.

There are similarities to the defense of George Bush’s every policy as conservative, but there is a massive difference as well. No one, not even his opponents, doubted that Bush was a man of great faith and decency, who respected life in all its forms and closely adhered to his own principles, even when they differed from standard conservatism. He was a strong conservative in some areas, particularly in the pro-life arena, and a moderate in others.

Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrated himself to be nothing more than an opportunist in every conceivable area of policy. He changes positions on a weekly basis, and does not apologize for his personal failures. And all the while, his surrogates defend his every action as consistently conservative, making a mockery of themselves, their political master, and the very term “conservative” in the process.

If Trump loses in two weeks, there will still be a chance to mitigate the damage. But if he wins, it will only continue and become even worse. Conservatism will continue to be defined ever downward, until it ceases to have any meaning at all.