Conservatives’ Role in an Age of Reform

David Brooks has another great piece on what the future may hold for conservatives. It’s so good I’d love to post the whole thing but in the interest of avoiding copyright infringment I’m going to try and just hit the highlights here.

The premise of the piece is that America is about to enter an age of ‘epic legislation’ that will come from being forced to deal with major problems facing us as a country. Mr.Brooks lists the five major issues on the horizon:

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform.

Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative.

Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run.

Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

To some readers this may sound like a recipe for a long period of Democrat leadership in our government. Not so fast, says Brooks.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It’s as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

I really like that last sentence (and plan to quote it often in the future). It neatly sums up the real differences between the liberal and conservative brands of Progressivism.  ”…they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.”

As examples of two leaders who embodied the spirit of this ideal Brooks turns towards Benjamin Disraeli and Theodore Roosevelt. He explains, “Both re-framed the political debate so that it was not change versus the status quo, it was unfamiliar change versus cautious, patriotic change designed to preserve the traditional virtues of the nation.”

Some of my good friends and fellow bloggers will no doubt scoff at the mention of the word ‘tradition’ as hopelessly outdated and vague, but my opinion is that ‘tradition’ defines that unspoken feeling many Americans share. They want progress, but wise and measured progress.

Another extremely quotable line comes from Disraeli himself,

“In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change, which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.”

And so we have our two definitions of ‘change’ that could easily frame the rest of the presidential race.

Liberal change - difference to ‘abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines’.

Conservative change - difference to ‘the manners, the customs, the laws and traditions of a people’.

I have no hard data to support my claim, but I will be willing to bet that a sizable majority of Americans, when given those two definitions, will choose the latter every time.

Brooks also talks about the philosphy of Roosevelt, who blended his vision of progress with a sense of nationalism and a national morality.

His formula was like Disraeli’s: political innovation to restore traditional national morality. He had an image of an American hero – thrifty, hard-working, vigorous and righteous – and sought to create a Square Deal for that sort of person. “The true function of the state as it interferes in social life,” Roosevelt wrote, “should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them.”

Americans are going to demand reform in the coming years. Thst is inevitable. The question remains whether or not conservatives are in a position to offer contrasting ideas to liberals. Our history shows that ‘slow and steady’ has almost always been the preferred American method for progress. We just have to explain that to the American people.