On the Future of the Conservative Movement
Parting Thoughts from the Editor Emeritus
Ilan Wurman
Last Updated: 12/30/09 Section: Opinion
I will state right now that I am a conservative, first-principles Republican; as I've said, I believe in limited government, individual freedom, and personal responsibility. And, I believe, some of the proposals articulated by certain reformist Republicans, who do not hesitate to use government to promote conservative policies, are misguided.
I do not discount the real differences between the two groups, but ultimately there is a middle road between these two contending factions in the Republican Party. A true conservative believes in freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility, but also believes in the government's ability to govern. There are many policies that the moderate, reformist Republicans advocate that are perfectly consonant with conservative principles. The challenge in convincing some conservatives of this truth is that many of them are not actually conservatives; they represent a third extreme, in which government is essentially abolished altogether. No Founder believed in such a system.
I shall name but a few examples of many to illustrate how a large body of so-called "reformist" policies are perfectly consonant with conservative principles. On education policy, reformist Republicans believe in more school choice, strong standards and accountability, and more state and local control. More school choice includes charter schools and can include a partial voucher system. But critically, it does not eliminate public schools, because ultimately the state has an interest in the education of its citizenry; and, yes, some people would be left behind in a total privatization of the public system. A true conservative would argue not simply that more school choice means more freedom, but rather that more school choice means better results. Why would "more freedom" or "more choice" be desirable in themselves? Would they be desirable if parents took advantage of them by teaching their kids false science, or perhaps racism?
In the same vein, the state has an interest in seeing its students succeed in the education system; after all, that's why the system was instituted in the first place. Therefore, government can and should insist on strong standards and methods of measuring students' achievement of these standards. Standards and accountability, of course, should be left to the state governments, because if the federal government creates poor standards or accountability measures, the effect will be felt by all the states. But that the state governments have legitimate power and purpose to pursue these ends is unquestionable. What conservative would disagree with these policies?
I do not discount the real differences between the two groups, but ultimately there is a middle road between these two contending factions in the Republican Party. A true conservative believes in freedom, limited government, and personal responsibility, but also believes in the government's ability to govern. There are many policies that the moderate, reformist Republicans advocate that are perfectly consonant with conservative principles. The challenge in convincing some conservatives of this truth is that many of them are not actually conservatives; they represent a third extreme, in which government is essentially abolished altogether. No Founder believed in such a system.
I shall name but a few examples of many to illustrate how a large body of so-called "reformist" policies are perfectly consonant with conservative principles. On education policy, reformist Republicans believe in more school choice, strong standards and accountability, and more state and local control. More school choice includes charter schools and can include a partial voucher system. But critically, it does not eliminate public schools, because ultimately the state has an interest in the education of its citizenry; and, yes, some people would be left behind in a total privatization of the public system. A true conservative would argue not simply that more school choice means more freedom, but rather that more school choice means better results. Why would "more freedom" or "more choice" be desirable in themselves? Would they be desirable if parents took advantage of them by teaching their kids false science, or perhaps racism?
In the same vein, the state has an interest in seeing its students succeed in the education system; after all, that's why the system was instituted in the first place. Therefore, government can and should insist on strong standards and methods of measuring students' achievement of these standards. Standards and accountability, of course, should be left to the state governments, because if the federal government creates poor standards or accountability measures, the effect will be felt by all the states. But that the state governments have legitimate power and purpose to pursue these ends is unquestionable. What conservative would disagree with these policies?
Be the first to comment on this story