A Deo Lumen

Yesterday Mark Helprin’s article at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) offers one of the most powerful and penetrating critiques of conservatives, particularly influential talk radio hosts:

For by their neglectful forfeit they have lost the battles of culture and education, and to remain other than an occult force they must express their beliefs through politics, from which, after November, they may be for a time excluded.

I disagree that conservatism is an “occult force” or that it is or will be excluded from politics at any time.  However, I agree there is a fundamental neglect by many conservatives.  By the way conservative radio hosts talk,  I think they neglect to see the day-today realities of regular people who live outside their worldview (though they are often excellent at dissecting other worldviews at the philosophical level).

Helprin, like many others these days, is arguing that not backing McCain (i.e., not voting this year) means handing the Presidency to Obama or Clinton.  This neglect raises a red flag. It is hard to argue against Helprin.  The voter turnout in the primaries is significantly higher for the Democrats, and it will take the GOP every vote they can get to win. The last two elections have been so close and the Republicans have been hit so hard the past eight years that even with every possible vote, either Democratic candidate will be hard to beat, even if the supposed “anti-Billary vote” rallies to McCain.

Helprin names the battles of culture and education as areas of neglect where conservatives have forfeited ground to the left. This list can certainly be expanded, and in my next post I will suggest another strategic area for consideration. But the initial question is why do conservative views not enjoy broader acceptance, and instead seem confined to such as Helprin mentions, namely “national security (in particular the strength of the military after Iraq and vis-à-vis China and a resurgent Russia), Constitutionalism (as in individual vs. collective rights), and the economy (free markets vs. government industrial policy)”?

I believe there is a strong generational component to this. It is one of many factors, but one that must be understood if a new generation of Americans is to build upon the clear strengths of conservatism. I have researched this question at length and will initiate a series of posts on the generational dimensions of today’s ideological conflict in America.  Please come back for that.

For today, I wanted to discuss why I voted in Maryland’s primary election for John McCain, and why I am concerned about the implications of opposition to McCain among conservatives. Like many conservatives, I had preferred Romney, but I could easily support McCain for three reasons:

1) He has not wavered on national defense and the importance of winning in Iraq as part of the ongoing struggle against global jihad.

2) He has committed to selecting judges who are strict constructionists, not judicial activists.

3) He does not have the forces of left-liberalism behind him, poised to grab the levers of power and reshape our society according to moral relativism and anti-family policies.

I share the concerns of many in his position on immigration and his lack of interest in economics, but neither Huckabee nor the Democratic choices offer superior alternatives on these fronts. I have had to make hard choices in my life, but this is not one.

Last week I heard that James Dobson is supporting Huckabee. Now, this could be a principled decision, but the question came to mind: Is he motivated to preserve power, rather than truly serve the country by supporting the best available candidate for families across America? My first reaction to the news was that this seems like a statement to the GOP powers-that-be that the Focus on the Family bloc will be heard no matter what, as if to say “If you don’t give us a conservative candidate, we will not give you our votes!” I sincerely hope not. The stakes are too high for such posturing.

Helprin’s article raised the question as well, offering this observation into the potential motivation for talk radio to prefer a Democrat in November:

…a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a president easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic.

Helprin argues that it is more profitable to play offense than defense. Four or eight years complaining against a Democrat president will gain a larger and more motivated audience than eight more years defending conservatism in the face of expanding relativistic liberalism in America. After all, didn’t that drive Bush into office after the Clinton years, and isn’t that kind of motivation so obvious on the Democratic side now?

At least that’s a potential narrative behind conservative anti-McCainism.

At a minimum, this gives me some pause. I am not judging the motives of conservatives or the talk radio folks. I am sure it is not as simple as this. Nonetheless, the temptations of influence and greed should always be on our radar. Our listenership puts money in Rush’s and Sean’s and their producers’ pockets. This is no sin of itself, but it does create something of a conflict of interest, if indeed it is more profitable to do radio from the political minority.

Something for us to consider…more reflections to come…