Reagan: big-tent conservatism

Can someone explain to me why it is that if “conservative” is such a
dirty word, most Republican presidential hopefuls, their respective
supporters and certain third parties are vying for exclusive rights to
the title?

For years, the tag of liberalism alone was enough to sink otherwise
viable Democratic presidential candidates. This was probably Bill
Clinton’s primary motive in repackaging himself as a centrist New
Democrat with the blessing of Al From’s Democratic Leadership Council.

In turn, liberals have sought forever to define conservatism as a
mean-spirited and racist political philosophy devoid of humanity and
compassion. Their favorite technique has been to hone in on a
particularly unpopular Republican leader and try to make him emblematic
of the entire conservative movement. So, if Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr and
Tom Delay are mean, then so is conservatism itself.

Considering this background, isn’t it amazing that so many of the
Republican presidential candidates are claiming to be the
authentic conservative — the most like Ronald Reagan? Go down the
list: Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes and Alan Keyes all consider
themselves Reagan conservatives. Even Pat Buchanan, despite his obvious
differences with Reagan on trade, immigration, and to a lesser extent,
foreign intervention, proudly identifies himself with the Gipper. And
George W. Bush, regardless of his “compassionate-conservatism” slogan,
is not running away from the conservative label. His handlers make a
point of publicizing the fact that Dubya has rejected his father’s
economic advisers in favor of Ronald Reagan’s.

Elizabeth Dole and John McCain are the exceptions. Either they are
ashamed of conservatism or they don’t believe it sells. Dole is
attempting to trade on her gender and McCain is trying to distinguish
himself by being a maverick and the “anti-Republican” Republican.

Certain third parties also claim to be the repositories of true
conservatism. Libertarians believe they are more consistently
conservative than any other party because they advocate the least
possible government (short of anarchy) across the board, including the
social issues. The Constitution Party boasts of a strong conservative
platform. Even the Reform Party claims (self-deceptively) to be fiscally
conservative.

There are two important points to be gleaned from this infighting
among those who consider themselves conservatives. One is positive and
the other is an alarm signal.

First, the emotional vigor with which each faction asserts its
superior claim to conservatism is a very encouraging development,
insofar as it signals that the voices of limited government are abundant
and robust. It means that for all the left’s efforts to make
“conservative” a pejorative word, they have failed resoundingly.

But the flip side of this coin is that the fervor igniting some of
these different right wing groups is characterized by an attitude of
exclusivity and judgmentality. As much as many believe themselves to be
the ideological heirs-apparent to Reagan, they fail to grasp an
essential point that Reagan implicitly understood: Conservatism and its
benefits are not the exclusive entitlement of anyone.

A political philosophy whose fundamental tenets include that people
unburdened by the constraints of government will prosper and “a rising
tide lifts all boats” cannot long flourish when its main proponents
themselves project a narrow chauvinism and smug haughtiness.

The last thing conservatives need to be doing is to cop an attitude,
especially with respect to each other.

It is perfectly appropriate for conservative candidates and their
supporters to advocate their positions with as much purity and
enthusiasm as they can muster. But it’s crossing the line when they
adopt a scorched-earth policy towards their fellow conservatives, just
because they don’t agree on every single issue.

Conservatives of all stripes need to learn from Democrats and Reagan
(a former Democrat) that with politics and government you will not be
able to get your way 100 percent of the time. But that doesn’t mean you
take your ball and go home at the expense of your country.

Spirited advocacy is the healthiest exercise in politics, but at the
end of the day, a consensus is necessary to govern. The trick is to
develop the consensus without sacrificing principle.

Conservative icon Ronald Reagan was able to walk that fine line. He
was neither a quitter nor an exclusivist. He believed in and preached an
ideologically driven and principled big-tent — but a big-tent,
nevertheless. It is critical that conservatives do not lose that part of
his winning formula.