Readers on The Conservative Challenge

Editor: I just read your "The Conservative Challenge." I agree completely with your assessment and tone of concern for the future of conservatism. Who can lead this effort of renewal? There are too many conservative groups tackling individual issues. We'd do better with on the balance with one or two groups championing limited constitutional government. Those groups need a Reaganesque champion to lead them and sell the message less government + lower taxes = more freedom. I've even wondered if Michael Reagan would be willing to take up his dad's messages and smack the GOP for betraying his father's legacy? Jerry Lobb

Editor: "The Conservative Challenge" was almost all that could be said on the subject and well said. But what about a meeting "of-the-minds" of Constitutional Conservative movers & shakers? If I may suggest that the parameters of said summit meeting should be the belief in the "strict" interpretation of and the belief in the fundamental basis of this country based on The Declaration of Independence and The US Constitution. As long as any Conservative accepts that then they should be included in the summit. I would also suggest representation of conservative "John/Jane Q. Public types. With regards, Frank
(Nalcrest, Fl.)

Editor: I just read your editorial "The Conservative Challenge" and thought it was a very good look at the problem of trying to make Republican politicians act like conservatives. It did hint at one aspect but you didn't follow through completely, that the likes of Bush and Nixon ignore us because they know they can. And it is our movement's own fault, since in the end the vast majority of conservative groups will endorse the Republican even if it's a case of the lesser of two evils. If they stopped doing that, then Republicans would pay attention, since we might actually start costing them elections Your own organization criticized Bush on his monumental spending and other non-conservative stances, yet didn't organize any opposition to him out of fear that Kerry might win. And what would make what sort of difference exactly? If you had made a strong editorial in favor of Michael Badnarik or Michael Peroutka, then the GOP would see you take your positions seriously and they could not take your support for granted, which they clearly do, as seen by their actions. In short, conservative groups will not have any influence within the GOP until the GOP understands that our support will be taken away if necessary. Thank you. Rich Tomasso

Editor: I'm writing in response to your article at ConservativeBattleline. I'm 22 and I self-identify as a "paleo-con". However- I'm from New York, I drink lattes and write free form poetry. So I'm not your average red state, "eat my dad's game meat" type paleo-con. Conservative Battleline was launched under the idea that "fusionism" of the Frank Meyer variety was still popular- and still a viable framework from which to build a conservative political coalition. I will not go so far as Sam Francis to say that this is a dead end. Fusionism arose during the Cold War and brought together, libertarians, traditionalists and disaffected liberals. The Cold War is over- and few people of political clout believe in the Red Faith- and so fusionism has lost some of what made it compelling.

It seems to me that there is a growing contingent of people (and young people) who are in crisis due to the lack of private and public authority in our society and polity. There first experience is not of an oppressive "big government" , but rather of a deeply permissive and meaningless society. Now, they may hate the petty regulations of our federal government- but the libertarian spirit of the Right is increasingly at odds with the traditionalist side- with the advent of lifestyle libertarians. Hence, traditionalist are resorting to radical means (Constitutional amendments) in order to safeguard marriage. Traditional Conservatives also (this may seem unfortunate to you) are not as opposed to an economic policy that includes some forms of redistribution or at least a balancing of class interests. In short- just as liberals are learning the benefits of a free market, conservatives are looking at the junk culture being peddled by the merchants and adopting some more reactionary attitudes towards capitalism.

I don't think that anyone has yet synthesized these trends- nor has developed an alternative to fusionism as a political framework for conservatives. However, based on my own observations, I do believe that the center of conservatism will shift away from the Fusionist framework built on opposing government intrusion, toward one based on the culture war itself which is more amorphous battle.

Having said this, I'm not entirely pleased. A governing philosophy cannot be based on moralism, or paternalism. And as a paleo-con I'd love to see more "protectionist" and "isolationist" tendencies in the emerging right-wing. But its best we begin to rethink Fusionism- and perhaps our alliance with libertarians- who will only be a burden toward rethinking a workable conservative coalition. Michael Brendan Dougherty

Editor: Yes! A revitalized grassroots! Right on! Now - how? The emphasis at the grassroots has actually been on cultural concerns, hasn't it? To some degree, the people have been more mobilized in this area than in the economic and "bureaucratic" one. But I see hope. Bush has already talked extensively about the "ownership society". Code for giving the power back to the people, isn't it? Tax reform. Social Security reform. Tort reform. Regulatory reform. Lots of things that could reduce people's dependence on government, and cause them to take more responsibility for themselves and their lives, right? Better, right? We can get behind a lot of that, with alacrity, can't we? I have a lot of hope at this point in time. Don't you? Jean L. Martin (M.A., M.S.S.W., retired), Richardson, Texas

Editor: In your 11/11/04 article, you wrote that we conservatives must rebuild conservatism at the grass roots. What do you exactly mean? How is this done? Regards, Jim Prewitt, Atlanta, GA.

Editor: "The Conservative Challenge" is a great piece! Thanks for writing it. I've asked one of our economics professors to write a similar piece--"social conservatives rejoice over a Bush election, but now it's time for a reality check in facing the Bush domestic spending disaster." I hope "The Conservative Challenge" gets wide circulation. Keep banging the drum. Lee Wishing Grove City, PA

Editor: Great article on the Conservative Challenge but I doubt that one person in five actually know what SMI, DI, OASI, OASDI and HI mean. I know I do not know them all (I assume I know two, but could be wrong). J.D., Columbus, Ohio

Editor responds: It is simple: HI and SMI are Medicare and OASDI, OASI and DI are Social Security.

Email the Editor