0901 Assertive Conservatism
Back in the late 1990’s, in the midst of social upheaval, some social conservatives appeared to decide that it was time to cut their losses and go for a popular image make-over. The intention was to promote the heart of conservatism more than its policies, even if the policies were successful. So was born the formulation of “compassionate conservatism”, eventually popularized by George W. Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign.
The biggest problem with the introduction of compassionate conservatism was the impression that conservatism had to be reformed to be compassionate. It is true that, as with any value system or political orientation, some adherents have needed reformation. Conservatism however, has always been compassionate – just not according to the same shape-shifting free-floating definitions and standards embraced by its critics.
The result of this public relations effort has been a perception of weakness and a growing expectation that conservatism amend its principles to meet “enlightened” progressive standards. Rather than defend itself and exercise the right of political/cultural critique, it is expected to be compassionate by adopting politically correct definitions or at least have the good sense to keep quiet. There is nothing more exasperating to liberals and many moderates than an informed and vocal conservative.
Keeping quiet is a conservative’s worst option. By doing so, not only do popular caricatures continue to fester but also the suppression of conservative ideals spreads. The only viable option is steadily increasing engagement in all realms of public affairs. Assertive conservatism must creatively, unapologetically and wisely advocate and apply its principles in all phases of private and public life. The heart of conservatism is not fear of change but change initiated when necessary and based on the tried and true.
If a refreshing is going to take place, assertive conservatives must impose upon themselves stringent ethical standards. It goes without saying that unwavering insistence on immovable standards will be misrepresented and maligned.
Integrity must be the most fundamental standard of all. At the most basic level, integrity is a matter of show and tell. It is one thing to wag the tongue but quite another to live by its fruit. Living on the fruit of one’s claims is exactly what integrity is all about.
Truth is essential to integrity. Claims of fact must be verifiable, whether the opposition accepts it as fact or not. Truth has no room for media propaganda, unproven junk science, shape-shifting sociology, word-parsing politics or mushy morality.
Consistency is key to integrity. If for instance conservative “players” praise the virtues of free enterprise solutions and limited government then, no matter how dire the circumstances, the line must be held. Assertive conservatives would refuse government-run economic schemes and would, to use terms from the Constitution and commissions from the Declaration of Independence, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”, fight to quarantine government to its designated roles. Those roles have been constitutionally designated as establisher of justice (not fairness), insurer of domestic (not international) tranquility, provider of national defense, promoter of general (not special interests) welfare and securer of liberty’s blessings (not entitlements).
This kind of integrity will yield the self-confidence and public boldness needed for effective social/political assertiveness. Conservative activism fromMain Streetwill be tempered by a compassion that embraces others for their infinite worth before God. It will love individuals and our country enough to demand social and political accountability for the common good. True civil freedom, after all, the kind that promotes domestic tranquility, does not come from social license or political prowess. It is a harmony built upon an observance of the rules necessary to play life’s melody.