Conservatism for the People

CONSERVATISM today must pay the price of its own success. Modern American conservatism arose after World War II as a movement of protest, a dissent against the reigning liberalism. Over the course of half a lifetime it became intellectually respectable and increasingly persuasive as liberalism revealed itself as bankrupt. Finally in 1980 a plurality of American voters decided to give the conservatives a chance to govern—not because they were convinced the conservatives had the answers, but because they were sure the liberals did not. Finding the experience satisfactory, they returned conservatives to the Presidency in 1984 and 1988. In fact, by the end of the Reagan Administration, the very word “liberalism” had become a recognized political liability.

But this accomplishment is not equivalent to convincing the American people that conservatism should replace liberalism as their political faith. This is especially evident in the domain of policy, where liberalism remains competitive, perhaps even dominant. This remains so for three reasons. First, liberals possess a coherent agenda, a vision which is a fertile source of policy initiatives. Second, liberalism is an elite movement, and elites are more easily able to translate their ideas into policy. And third, the liberal movement rests on a network of discrete, readily mobilized constituencies which form strong grassroots coalitions.

PW

About the Author

Paul Weyrich

Featured Tags

CONSERVATISM today must pay the price of its own success. Modern American conservatism arose after World War II as a movement of protest, a dissent against the reigning liberalism. Over the course of half a lifetime it became intellectually respectable and increasingly persuasive as liberalism revealed itself as bankrupt. Finally in 1980 a plurality of American voters decided to give the conservatives a chance to govern—not because they were convinced the conservatives had the answers, but because they were sure the liberals did not. Finding the experience satisfactory, they returned conservatives to the Presidency in 1984 and 1988. In fact, by the end of the Reagan Administration, the very word “liberalism” had become a recognized political liability.

But this accomplishment is not equivalent to convincing the American people that conservatism should replace liberalism as their political faith. This is especially evident in the domain of policy, where liberalism remains competitive, perhaps even dominant. This remains so for three reasons. First, liberals possess a coherent agenda, a vision which is a fertile source of policy initiatives. Second, liberalism is an elite movement, and elites are more easily able to translate their ideas into policy. And third, the liberal movement rests on a network of discrete, readily mobilized constituencies which form strong grassroots coalitions.