Conservatives Should Get Over 1980

The right wing has been stuck in the mindset of 1980, waging noble fights against taxes and cultural radicals. A new incremental approach is needed.

Oklahoma City — I do not agree with President Obama on much, but I think he was spot on when he stated that sometime a few decades ago half of the Baby Boomers grew to despise the other and vice versa. The left wing of the Largest Generation has never gotten over the year 1968. Social revolution in the air, popular resistance to an increasingly unpopular war, and the politicization of the personal continues to guide much of their thinking.

Likewise, the right wing has far too often been stuck in 1980 — noble fights against oppressive taxes, godless communism and cultural radicalism. Now, however, more and more residents are entering the electorate who have no memory of 70 percent marginal rates, Soviet tanks or burning bras.

However, the “next conservatism” need not start from scratch — after all, what would be conservative about that? Rather, the next conservatism most go back to basics and relearn the three R’s, applying the lessons to new challenges.

First, the next conservatism must be realist. Conservatives must learn to re-embrace incrementalism. There is something jarring about a radical conservatism. When someone asks me if I am a moderate or a conservative, I readily answer “both.”

A basic lesson of conservatism is the Law of Unintended Consequences. Change should happen slowly, moderately, while taking into account the traditions of the people. Overpromising and underperforming is an invitation to cynicism. A better way is to set realizable goals, seek a mandate from the electorate, and then deliver.

Second, the next conservatism must be regional. We in Oklahoma have traditions that we hold dear and that I personally love; but what we seek to conserve here is by necessity going to differ greatly from, say, Connecticut. Gun control and the role of labor unions quickly come to mind. Conservatives in Oklahoma should valiantly advocate for our variety of conservatism, while remaining willing to ally with conservatives in other regions on the national stage.

Enough with procedure then, even a new conservatism must have an agenda. This agenda can be summed up as Reform Conservatism. In the present environment, the lack of a reform agenda equates to identification with corruption and stagnation. Ross Douthat and David Frum both make the distinction between upper-middle-class reform and lower-middle-class reform, a tension between the country club and Sam’s Club.

To be successful, Reform Conservatism must be comprehensive — combining the best of both reforms. Good government reforms like campaign finance reform and increasing transparency in appropriations can be good antidotes to the stench of Abramoffism. We clearly cannot afford for campaign finance reform to be solely defined in the Feingold mold, but must present our own version rather than merely stonewalling.

Similarly, conservatives cannot afford to ignore pressing matters such as health care, education and the environment. The specter of socialized medicine ought not to scare Reform Conservatives away from presenting alternatives to the current mess.

Health insurance exchanges, insurance portability and a more efficiently run Medicare will speak to valid interests of average Americans without wounding the innovative energies present now.

Education deserves to be the centerpiece of Reform Conservatism. School choice is a perfect example of the idea that government can fund a service without necessarily providing it. The practicality of population concentration ensures that school choice will be a greater reality in metro areas than in rural ones. What works in north Oklahoma City is not guaranteed to work in McCurtain County. Such is all the more reason for Reform Conservatives to be on the side of local control of public schools against central bureaucratic diktat.

The environment should be a natural conservative issue. Policies that use market forces to obtain the goals of clean air and water will help prove that the Right is responsible, thinking of the long term. Reform Conservatives can focus on producing results people can see (like fewer ozone alert days and less mercury in fish), leaving the Left with empty rhetoric.

The disaster of 2006 midterm elections, followed by the Democratic victories in 2008, was no accident. To avoid further disaster, we must move on from 1980. The path to a conservative Oklahoma, a conservative America, can best be trod with realism and regional flexibility, and with a Reform agenda.