Our Movement: A Time For Renewal

There's been much talk of renewal within the Republican party. At the same time, perhaps as a term of art in many cases, we mostly call ourselves the conservative movement out here. It serves, though how accurate it is is another matter.

If a leading Right-side blogger like Instapundit aka Glenn Reynolds doesn't mind being called conservative, when he's actually a Libertarian, that's fine with me. However, with the rise of Libertarianism we're seeing today, perhaps it's time we at least re-assess what we truly stand for on the Right. And with that, it might serve to evaluate how well represented we are by some of today's self-professed conservative leadership, too.

I've no arrows to sling, no bridges I want burned, or alliances to drop. Most of us are often in common cause. But when a fine man like Newt Gingrich is touted as a conservative leader, while calling for a so-called principled bi-partisanship with a Democrat Party that has shifted so far Left, he is either using a political ploy, or has had his head in the sand. My fear is that such leadership may only result in more Republican Progressivism in the end. Add his positions on AGW and Dede Scozzafava to that and perhaps you can appreciate why I'm left scratching my head in that particular case.

I had the opportunity to listen to another outstanding conservative leader I admire, Dick Armey, the other night. In a perhaps telling and humorous pause in his speech, he said something to the effect of, there's a welcomed idealism in the Tea Party movement, while some of the older hands are perhaps jaded, or have become cynical due to their time in the trenches. That's perfectly understandable, and I mean the honorable man no disrespect by pointing it out; however, it does cause me to wonder if it isn't time for some evolution, not revolution, to take place. Unfortunately, I've been unable to separate the remark from the decision of Freedom Works to give John McCain a pass.

I've no desire to diminish John McCain's service to America, but we all know he will be the first Progressive Republican to round-up a crew of Senators and dash off to the opposition should conservatives ever try to make their mark if they prevail in 2010 and 2012. He's over 70 and he's been in DC for what, 30 years? Just how long is long enough when one happens to be a part of the old boy network? I just can't find the principle in his drawing a pass. I'm sorry, but something does not compute. And it causes me to fear that too much of our conservative leadership is more tied to the Republican establishment, than the movement they would claim to represent. And it pains me to have to say it, make no mistake.

Movements are notoriously idealistic, only prudently breaking down into pragmatic politics when they've at least neared their goals. Sadly, we are further removed from those today than we were 20 years ago. That is a fact. It's my belief that a movement must shoot for the stars, while likely settling for the forward moving discovery of a once distant moon when it assesses its results at journey's end. And I fear that a movement that only shoots for the moon will result in our movement falling back to Earth, to discover we've empowered the same old Republican Progressivism we've experienced now for two full decades.

Then, of course, there are some other leadership issues Michelle Malkin diplomatically pointed out the other day. I've no desire to re-visit them in detail. I want this to be as positive and forward moving a statement as I can make it be. I'm not angry at anyone, have no fingers to point, and no accusations to make. But I am serious in my belief that time and generational changes are impacting what has been our movement since Goldwater and Reagan and it may be close to, if not, time to respond to them.

Evidently some mostly young Ron Paul supporters were booed at CPAC. What a shame that was. I'd much prefer a younger generation starting out as libertarians and perhaps shifting slightly Right as they mature, than see every young politically active American begin as a liberal, as is too often the case. We need to embrace these people, not turn them away, as it seems Mike Huckabee would prefer. We can ill afford any politics of division on the Right given the crucial times we're in.

The only real ground up Right-side movement I see in America today is the Tea Party movement. It's my hope that, eventually, through inclusion, not confrontation with whatever it is we are, it can give us the new blood, enthusiasm and energy we are going to need for the significant challenges that lie ahead. And that's the movement I intend to start focusing more of my blogging energy upon. My sense is, it needs every seasoned political hand, or voice, it can get right now - not to co-opt it, but to help grow it as best we can until it coalesces into whatever, if anything, it may become.

Unfortunately, if all it becomes is a large number of people turning out to vote for the same old Republican Party, America will simply continue the long, slow slide to the Left we've experienced for far too long already.

It's my belief that the Tea Party movement, not the conservative establishment that hosted CPAC, is most likely our last best hope for an America that has for too long continued to slide Left under both Democrats and Republicans. And it's through the Tea Party movement I believe we can re-take the Republican party. I am by no means buying into any third party ideas.

Call it whatever you want, the vision I have for a renewed Right-side movement is one that finds a way to incorporate the values of the social conservative, while respecting the libertarian ideal of separation of church and state. It's a movement that can manage to embrace the need for military strength most appreciated by the hawk and the neo-conservative, while understanding the fear of military adventurism of the Ron Paul crowd. And it's one that appreciates the need for fiscal restraint on the part of government above all else.

I realize that narrative for the Right is already playing out. So, writing it here may be redundant. But it's worth re-stating now and then. I want as big a tent as we can practically achieve. But we can not get there without the right leadership. And I'm no longer convinced the best movement leadership is to be found in DC. Ultimately, I hope a genuine conservative Republican will emerge for 2012 to head this all up politically. Until then, much of my focus will be on movement politics.

As a blogger, I've always tried to be more a voice of the people, as opposed to the political or media establishment. That, combined with my sense that the only real ground up Right-side political movement in America today is the Tea Party crowd, dictates that within that sometimes sordid lot I have to take my stand. Something tells me I may fit right in. heh!

Seriously, if the GOP - and our movement is to be renewed as I believe both need to be, I've come to believe it's the Tea Party movement, not the DC conservative establishment, that is most likely our last best hope of achieving that noble end in the cause of political freedom in America. It's my hope that I will always feel free to do what my heart and mind compel me to in that regard.

Comments

[mark l.]

good stuff.

(while there are a lot in the media who think they have the pulse of the tea party movment, the one guy, imho, who actually understands it, is pat caddell.)

[Mark Thompson]

Great post, Dan. This is the most encouraging piece I've read from a true-blue conservative on this topic since I started blogging almost 3 years ago.

[Thomas]

When libertarians "mature". What an ass you are. The entire Tea Party movement is rooted in the principles of libertarianism.

[Dan Riehl]

Thomas - this is the 2nd time you've been an ass today. I was talking about the young kids at CPAC maturing. Take a reading comprehension class before you pop off.

[Thomas]

BS, Dan. "I'd much prefer a younger generation starting out as libertarians and perhaps shifting slightly Right as they mature..."

As if libertarianism is just kid's stuff, something to grow out of as one gets older. Give me a f(ing break.

[JMacIV]

Thomas, take a chill pill man. Dan wants to embrace libertarians and was criticizing Huckabee for wanting to turn them away from the Republican party. I really don't think Dan was trying to insult anyone with this post.

[Rob Howard]

Great post Dan. Very well said.

@ Thomas:

Dan, like myself, is a conservative (or at least I'm assuming that based on this post), meaning that we are not quite in the same boat as the libertarians, especially "big L" libertarians, which is what I'm certain Dan is referring to here.

I'm in my twenties still, and of all my friends I am probably one of the few actual conservatives. Everyone else is either liberal or libertarian. The reason, in my view (I don't really mean this to be insulting, although some might be insulted anyway), is that each of those political worldviews draws upon youthful idealism in a certain way that is often tempered by experience later. The young liberal, for instance, feels that there is so much injustice to be fixed and government is the answer. The young libertarian correctly senses that government is the problem, but applies in equal amount of idealism to the equation, which in all practical effect pits them against social conservatives and neo-conservatives. The former is libertarian save for what we feel are objective truths, obtainable from reason and tested thousands of years of past human civilization. The neo-conservative differs with the libertarian, obviously, on matters of national defense and its execution.

I feel that these differences can be reconciled, so as long as the libertarian can understand that a society cannot be completely libertine; that no man, unless he possesses ethics that is borne of some other universe, can fully accept a society does not even gently encourage healthy behavior, otherwise we'd have pornographers setting up shop next to the local school house.

Most older libertarians I know of accept that. They often call themselves "libertarian-conservatives," and might hold views that are 99% the same as your young, fiery Ron Paul supporter, but are usually much more congenial and easy to work with.

To me, the young libertarian becomes this as certain realities of this world round out the sharp edge of their political framework.

[Huey]

As long as America is ruled by two parties (and I don't see a possibility of anything else occurring AND American retaining anything resembling that which has made us great) Republicans will have to be a "big tent" party -- just as the Democrats will.

Libertarians and conservatives are imperfect labels (as are progressive and liberal). Personally, I'm a mixture of all of those -- depending on which subject is under discussion. Frankly, anyone who isn't a mixutre, in my opinion, hasn't given enough thought to what he stands for and why.

So, I'm all for McCain and other "less conservative" Republicans running for office. They, no more than anyone else "owes" a younger person or a differently-minded person, the office they hold.

If the person who wants the office wants it -- thinks he can do a better job -- then run. And, if, in the Primary, he wins, then that, too, is good. If he loses, however, the constant refrain I hear from some on the right that they won't vote for (fill in the blank with name of "not conservative enough Republican") and risk giving the seat to a Democrat who is almost assuredly more liberal than the "RINO" are foolish at best and destructive at worst.

[Steve Poling]

Now is the right time to have this conversation. We ought not boo Paulistas if we expect them to pull the R lever in the polling booth.

Sarah Palin said that a primary election ought not be a "civil war" and that's a good sentiment when renegotiating the power relationships between the establishment Republicans "who ruined the brand" and the rest of us. The establishment have to prove they've taken a delivery from the clue train in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Best way I can think of for Republicans to demonstrate they can hear us is by winning contested Primary elections.

That's a good reason to vote against the fellow Mrs. Palin has endorsed in the Arizona Senate race. And should Colin Powell want to tell Republicans what to do, I'll pay more attention after he actually wins a primary election, too.

We shouldn't kick the Progressive Republicans out of the party, but we should require them to demonstrate that they do more for the Republican Party than Paulistas and Tea Partiers. Otherwise, I suggest they already belong to the Whigs v2.0

[sam]

Ron Paul rocks!!

Libertarianism is the future.

[Tom Lamb]

Hear! Hear!

[alwaysfiredup]

Very nice post, Dan. I agree; in fact, the Tea Party is what drew me rightward in the first place. It's the simple, sensible message that I hear from the Tea Partiers: Be frugal! Don't spend more than you have! Who can argue with that? It's straightforward, humble and easy to understand and measure. It's the most appealing conservative message in a decade or more. The GOP should be getting on the bandwagon and not listen to the DC conventional wisdom that just doesn't get it.

[LastRick]

I tend to agree with Thomas (even if I wouldn't use his tone).

Dan writes: "The only real ground up Right-side movement I see in America today is the Tea Party movement. It's my hope that, eventually, through inclusion, not confrontation with whatever it is we are, it can give us the new blood[.]" The problem is, it's not the Right's movement. Rick Santelli's rant was Ayn Randian, selfish, without sympathy for others, in other words, libertarian pure and simple.

Yet, I point this out yesterday and I'm chastised for being "timid". It's not timidity, it's anger. It was a call for smaller government, for an end to handouts and, as Erick Erickson wisely called months ago, it is being coopted (as you yourself Dan are suggesing here) by the Right and more specifically by the GOP. That's not what the Tea Party movement was about, it wasn't a GOP movement. Can't you see that if the GOP voters make the tea party movement their own, it belittles the movement, it marginalizes it?

[Mo]

Great post. Right on the money. People nitpick about the labels, but Dan, I think you said what needed to be said. It can't be "business as usual" for the Republicans or avowed conservatives. Best label probably would be "liberatarian conservatives", but it doesn't make a difference, what you described is the direction the country SHOULD head in (instead of the totalitarianism the Left wants to take us to).

[BR]

Well said. I went to one of the first tea parties in my state capitol, in February 2009. A few weeks ago I filled out the ballot form to be a Republican precinct delegate, for the first time. Now I need to find some "No more Scozzofavas" and "No more McCains" buttons. Should be interesting.

[Brooks Bayne]

As a former "Libertarian", I'd like to see the word's use purged from the conservative vernacular. I left the LP for good reason (too many anarchists, potheads and don't get me started on NOTA at the conventions). As one of the early participants in the Tea Party movement (I organized L.A.'s event last Feb 27th and I moderate the teapartiers listserve where most of the movement's national leaders interact), I can tell you that the Tea Party movement and the LP are not synonymous.

Using the term libertarian implies Libertarian - not at all good for anyone. Can't we just use the term "constitutionalist"?

The LP is outdated, overrun with anarchists, gay marriage supporters, pro-deathers, and is nearly irrelevant to this discussion, and in no way are they the keepers of the Tea Party movement. Thank God for that.

[Agnes B. Bullock]

WOW!!!! A must read for all serious thinkers on the Right.