Ronald Reagan ignited my real interest in modern conservatism based on his remarkable and detailed radio broadcasts, and his passion for political philosophy drawn from the Greeks forward, and modern conservative thought from Burke forward.
I had read most of them as a dispassionate student, but Reagan drove me deep into them, establishing the bedrock upon which to erect a coherent political philosophy.
Likewise, when I came to the Christian faith later in my life, I went straight to the Bible for my spiritual inspiration and truth, which then drove me deep into the source material of the faith’s historical assent.
But I would never claim to be the final authority on modern conservatism, only a serious student; nor would I ever dare suggest that my Christian studies have advanced me much further than a young child in the faith.
All of this is to say that when I listen to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), Leader McConnell (R-KY), or the various other “offended” Republicans who are wobbly in their support of – or who are not supporting at all – Donald Trump, and basing that displeasure on their ownership of what conservatism is or isn’t (or what “American” values are, or aren’t), I get mighty confused and anxious.
I didn’t get the memo that assigned them as the arbitrators of what conservatives stand for.
In earlier articles I’ve asked a simple question; who made unbridled, helter-skelter immigration policies flooding the nation with second and third world immigrants – many of whom show little to no interest in assimilating into the broader American culture – a conservative value? Why is funding 300,000 more Syrian Muslims into the U.S. a conservative value?
And who decided on Globalism for us? When did that occur? Why are one-sided trade pacts written by trans-national corporate lobbyists and bureaucrats now sacrosanct articles of “free trade” when it is obvious that they are “managed corporate trade” at best?”
Why is the acceptance by these “conservatives” in our leadership, especially our Governors and our Congress, of clearly illegal and unlawful Executive Orders by President Obama now a matter of conservative principle? Or simply rubber-stamping Obama’s radical spending plans? When did that happen? Or who decided that during the Presidency of George W. Bush massively increasing the size of government and the intrusion on the lives of free citizens, was conservative?
If you ask me from my “conservative” perspective, these are not, and never have been, conservative principles. Conservatism has been hi-jacked, or misinterpreted, or both.
One small example of how confusing all of this can be:
Speaker Ryan this week announced with much fanfare a 35-page report from the Congressional GOP “Task Force on Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility.” It contains many ideas that most of us would agree with about families and jobs being the critical link in poverty and what we can do about it.
But here is the rub:
The Speaker and the Congress are allowing the U.S. to be flooded with illegal immigrants which has driven down wages in low-skilled industries (especially hurting minorities) and want to massively increase the number of “refugees;” the Congress wants to greatly increase H-1B visas that allow U.S. companies to fire existing American workers and replace them with low paid foreign workers on temporary visas; and the Congress has before them the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement that will allow foreign corporations to determine who they can bring into the U.S. to work, without restrictions.
We already know that a majority of first generation immigrant families are on public assistance; so, if we want to fight poverty, why would we at the same time want to import much more of it? Is that a conservative value too?
And we have a lot of folks “shocked” about Trump’s suggestion to at least temporarily halt immigration from Muslim countries, “until we know what we’re doing and who is coming.”
His critics, both Republican “conservatives” and Democrat “socialists” (but I repeat myself), are aghast; “un-American; not American values;” blathering on and on. Really?
This is absurd, of course. America has routinely stopped immigration from selected countries. It is not only legal, it has been done by President Obama himself! The U.S. has also had a complete halt to virtually all immigration for fifty years in the last century; and yes, we deported millions of Mexican nationals in the Eisenhower years.
Trump is not to my mind a classical conservative; however, neither was John McCain or Mitt Romney. And, frankly, on a scale of 1 to 10, it is hard to make the case they were even as conservative as Trump is.
But, a handful of “real conservatives” are in charge, evidently, of this definition. And they are now distraught, lecturing many of us (who have been at it a lot longer than they have, by the way) on what we can and cannot say, what we can or can’t believe to be a conservative.
But the redefinition of ideas is a cottage industry today, and not only in politics, but with religion as well. Some prominent evangelicals have endorsed Trump, and, excuse the word picture, all hell has broken loose.
What is an evangelical today? Depends on whom you ask. What is orthodox now? Apparently anyone who claims to be. Ask the Episcopalians.
And not to be outdone, business and education are going through the same crisis of identity and definitions, where what something means one day, may not be applicable the next (who can use what bathroom as an example); where what issue or celebrity or politician you support can directly affect the bottom line.
It’s enough to give you a headache, no?
We live in an age where anyone with access to the internet gets to be an expert. That impulse bleeds into the society and culture at large. Personal assertions, passions and impressions begin taking the place of facts and ideas based on ancient wisdom, history, experience and simple right and wrong.
Theologian and social critic Os Guinness in his wonderful book, Fool’s Talk, writes that we live in the “new age of the self and selfies,” and “I post, therefore I am.”
As one who posts, that thought cuts a little too close to the bone for me; but it’s an apt description of the new world we live in, and the place of rational discourse in it. Mores the pity.
13 comments
You know Mike, I have thought about this articles for a few days. The real test for a Conservative?
A real political conservative is someone who knows that Washington will never change under current campaign finance and PAC money laws. If someone believes otherwise, then they are a liberal.
End of story.
As I read this fine exposition I almost felt the words were speaking to me, we are very lucky and should be thankful to have Mr. Giere as a regular contributor here. I often find myself reverting to despair and sometimes even cynicism (which I’m willing to apologize to the readership for) over the silliness and confusion displayed by this modern crop of conservative adherents regarding their gross misunderstandings of the roots of conservative philosophy in classic liberalism and it’s expressed values. I realize this is wrong, as they too often are simply being manipulated by a powerful, self serving political elite that has indeed “hijacked” conservatism, as I don’t believe for a second there is any misinterpretations or misunderstandings regarding the political philosophy present among this group. Donald Trump has challenged their hegemony and the extent they will go, both overtly and covertly to preserve that control is unknown at this time but potentially disastrous.
I personally can’t find this younger generation of misled and misinformed apostates truly to blame for these gross and disastrous misunderstandings, because the real fault may well lie with individuals like myself who traveled the political roads of the Reagan era and didn’t fight to the bloody end to reinforce his post presidential legacy, from preventing the re-entrenchment of this disgraced and out of power cabal, who so comfortably slipped back into positions of power in the party and the people’s Congress and engaged as their first acts of post Reagan conservatism the abandonment of the working and middle class and the furtherance of big government social and economic policies, which they of course claimed were perfectly reasonable, because they were “conservative” even when they effectively looked little different from the Democratic policies which they continued in the political marketplace to insincerely reject.
We now are living with the second generation of this post Reagan conservative elite and for many the trail of their roots have all but faded completely from their consciousness. What often passes for political conservatism today is nothing more then a set of meaningless catch phrases, meaningless in that they are never enacted into any practical policies. The conservative legislative model has become support for large government and program solutions that primarily underwrite a globalist financial and international regulatory model de-emphasizing national priorities as first and foremost, with more then a small hint of statist based thinking that has far more in common with modern progressivism and it’s many arms then any concept of conservatism evolving from the mid 20th century.
Those that are lost in this quagmire of lies and misrepresentations and are clinging to Donald Trump as a symbol of their unfocused outrage may never be able to overcome the rather remarkable circumstance that the one thing they have focused all their energies upon, with a serious push from those desperately clinging to power, is that Trump, the questionable conservative, may well be the last chance to spawn a vibrant rebirth of conservative thought and political affiliation from continuing decline. Millennials have surpassed the Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living generation, with young immigrants further expanding its ranks, and this majority population will not reach it’s peak voting age until 2036. If conservatism as a political philosophy can’t set it’s feet back on a truthful and meaningful path, like me. it won’t be around to see this event unfold let alone address it’s impact.
It doesn’t matter Michael– it will soon be too late for conservatism..
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sessions-dictator-obama-flooding-rural-towns-with-illegals/article/2594080
The Democrats have a plan and are carrying it out. They are resettling immigrants to red states and soon enough they are going to be monolithic.
Virginia was conservative for all my life up until it became a magnet for immigration and now a Clinton Carpet Bagger is governor and when the Democrats get their vote out they win statewide elections.
Trump will lose and then the GOPe will drag out the narrative that we have to acquiesce to yet another amnesty…I wouldn’t be surprised if they make illegal immigration a civil right and rewrite the laws to eliminate most categories of being illegal.
Good conservatives… about half the GOP will help Hillary pass this law. Paul Ryan? He is all for open borders…
Adios Conservatism… your third and second worlders of which you speak
don’t get a damn for limited government, the Constitution, rule of law..
etc. The want wealth redistribution and need it.
You good conservatives here who are in the GOPe can get ready to contribute your tax dollars to this cause.
Ditto to other posters.
Michael Giere, spot on as usual.
Ah! Such uplifting writing in a world that has declared war upon the American people … and proving that the quill is still sharper, more cutting than the blunt undiscerning sword.
Well done! Once again!
Enjoyed!
The answer to the question is “We do.”
Nope, as far as politics, they do.
“They” being the donor class. The Republican base simply will not support any candidate financially to the level necessary to win the WH.
So, in steps the donor class. But, they rightfully want something for their money. And, that something is always something that will give them their money back, with interest. At the expense of the middle-class of course.
Trump has lied to us. He has access to the funds of his own to run for president. He told us that he would use them over and over. But now? He has sold out to the donor class.
Screw Trump. This race is one devil against another devil, nothing more. This election asks only one question? Do you want to be shot by execution squad, or, hung by the neck until dead? Take your choice, pick your poison.
Oh, and Mike, Reagan is dead, Jesus Christ lives!
I agree completely that we can’t compete against big money messaging at the national level. However, the local, grassroots level is our ground. Face to face, neighbor to neighbor. Consensus built at that level can compete with money and media.
And of all people, a hated Democrat voices his opposition to big money’s grip on campaigns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/15/jimmy-carter-calls-for-return-to-publicly-financed-elections/
Jimmy Carter may not have been a great president, but hated? Nope
Without a doubt, the worst president on my lifetime? George Bush 41′. Coming in second? Richard Nixon.
Almost 36 years, and hated? See a doctor.
Way to miss the point of the link in order to argue.
Not looking for argument.
Another great and thoughtful essay from Michael Giere! He raises the level of political discourse considerably! With a leftist Congressman and Senators and Governor and majority of the County Board of Supervisors, it’s even more enjoyable to read his essays!