Environment Portal

In the past few months, Newt Gingrich and William Kristol have weighed in publicly with advice for John McCain. It’s all about what sort of presidential campaign he should run or what sort of candidate he should be.

Gingrich and Kristol are foursquare behind the idea that the Arizonan should run as a reformer, a conservative reformer.

The advice has plenty of merit. Voters want change and the nation needs it. And it would most certainly be advantageous for the country if Senator McCain were to grab the conservative reform banner and run with it.

But the Arizonan, famous for his independent streak, and with more than a quarter of a century of political experience under his belt, isn’t likely to campaign as a banner-waving reformer. He’s likely to be just what he is: a seasoned politician who will take the most practical routes to winning the presidency.

That doesn’t make him a crass opportunist. Nor does it mean that his candidacy is a principle-free zone. It simply means that as a practitioner of the fine art of electoral politics, Senator McCain is going to find ways of successfully negotiating the nation’s broad and tangled political landscape to gain victory.

His recipe will probably call for a little reform, a little populism and some stand-patism. In fact, that’s already the case. He’s calling for an optional simpler tax system while bashing Wall Street. His trade proposals are conventionally Republican. As the campaign unfolds, he may well change the mix of ingredients or the portions to better reflect swings in the electorate. That’s part of the fine art as well: flexibility.

Where does that leave conservative reform?

Without a strong standard-bearer, yes, indeed. But as conservatives have come to appreciate, Ronald Reagans don’t grow on trees. A movement leader who can be a political leader as well is, perhaps, a once in a generation occurrence.

But that shouldn’t be a cause for despair among conservatives. It helps to keep in mind that when it comes to movements, in the chain of events, electing likeminded politicians is the last link. Generally, reform doesn’t start at the center and work out to the perimeters. Reform starts on the perimeters and works its way to the center. In a very real sense, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were the end results of a much longer, less visible, process.

Thanks to the William Buckleys and Russell Kirks, thanks to countless Main Street Americans, conservatism was translated into a movement that became a political force that has been powerfully shaping the nation for a quarter of a century.

Despite what the establishment media and liberals say about conservatism being played out, such is not the case. There’s no shortage of conservative ideas for transforming the country. Start at the Heritage Foundation website and then visit the many other national and state conservative think-tank websites. Go online to conservative journals, like National Review. And visit pages like the American Thinker, where tangible contributions are being made to conservative thought and the national dialogue. Conservative reform ideas are everywhere.

Consider the period from Ronald Reagan’s inauguration through, at least, the completion of George W. Bush’s first term as the end of Phase I in the conservative advance. Much of that phase dealt with cleaning up the mess made by liberals in the 1960s and 1970s. The military was rebuilt. The Russians were defeated. Some significant reforms were passed, including the landmark 1996 welfare reform act pushed by Congressional Republicans. The Reagan tax cuts became the George W. Bush tax cuts. Voters were introduced to conservative thought, and, thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, that thought was made practical to the everyday lives of Americans.

But that phase is now over, and gratitude for past achievements goes only so far with voters. They want answers and direction in dealing with the problems and challenges they now face.

Enter conservative reform. Government is still the problem, as Ronald Reagan would undoubtedly say if he were around. In fact, all the more so.

Today, much of the federal government is rusting out and dry-rotting. It was built by liberals in the last century to respond to the challenges of industrial America. The America of Big Business and Big Labor; of sprawling factories and belching smokestacks. That old big government is protected by liberals due to their narrow self-interest and by loyalty to a hoary ideology that, with the passing years, has become more Europeanized and statist.

The liberal response to contemporary challenges and problems is no different than that of liberals a generation ago. Healthcare: let government run it. Energy: punish producers and let government control it. Taxes: hike them. Public education: throw more money at it. Social welfare: spend more. Government: grow it. And on and on.

Liberalism is purely a reactionary creed. That point can’t be underscored enough. It offers no new departures. None. Everything in the Obama and Clinton playbooks comes from the McGovern-Carter playbooks of the 1970s. From taxes to spending to foreign policy and national defense, the Democratic contenders are Ford Pintos with fresh coats of paint.

Reactionary liberalism has gained traction this year because it found a moment to exploit. Voter disillusionment and fatigue with the Iraqi war, a slowing economy and a recent Republican Congress that turned from conservative governance to big government, profligate spending and earmarking have given liberals an opening.

But originality of thought and innovation and new ideas with an eye to the future are occurring among conservatives. Voters are anxious for change, not the empty change offered by Barack Obama, but meat and potatoes change. Change that dramatically reshapes government; that makes it more effective in performing its essential duties; that divests or decentralizes other functions to states and localities; that seeks solutions in the private sector first; and that returns to citizens greater responsibility for their lives. And with that responsibility comes greater choices and rewards.

Yet absent a compelling conservative reform message and messenger, to date, voters have been enticed by the Democrats, whose repackaged liberalism looks brand spanking new, especially to younger voters with no firsthand knowledge of the liberal debacle a generation ago.

Senator McCain may well win the presidency, but that will be due to many factors. No small part will be voters realizing that Barack Obama isn’t an agent of change, but an agent of the status quo ante.

Whoever wins the presidency, it’s a good bet that voters won’t get what they truly want. The likelihood is that this year’s restless, volatile electorate will be that way in 2010 and 2012. Getting more of the same from the Democrats, or not enough that’s new from John McCain, could make this so.

No historical parallel is exact, of course, but the early years of the 21st Century presents conservatives with opportunities similar to what the Progressives had in the opening years of the last century. It offers the chance to advance a broad reform agenda. This time, not aimed at the ills and excesses of capitalism, but at the ills and excesses of government.

Progressive reformers didn’t wait for political leaders to come along to spark their movement. It was started by countless people in countless communities throughout the nation. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were results.

The same thing holds true for conservative reform today: start the movement and the politicians will follow.