Search for on  
Thursday, December 04, 2008
     
 Home
 About CWA
 Join CWA
 Give/Donate
- Donate Now
- More Ways to Give
 Get Involved
- Federal
- State/Local
 Media Center
 Legislation
 Beverly LaHaye
 Institute
 Culture and Family Issues
 Legal Studies
 Family Voice
- Subscribe Online!
 Multimedia
 Shop CWA
 About CWA
 CWALAC
 Project 535
 Employment
 Internships
 Brochures
 Fact Sheets
 Recently on CWA
 Links

 

First in a series
The Next Conservatism
A Series by Paul M. Weyrich
     7/18/2005

New developments and new challenges will bring forth a

Editor's Note: This article is part of a series on "The Next Conservatism" by Paul Weyrich, chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Mr. Weyrich is a major influence in the modern conservative movement and a personal friend of Concerned Women for America's (CWA) founder and chairman, Beverly LaHaye. In this series Mr. Weyrich seeks to spark a discussion among conservatives about the future of the movement and how we may best achieve lasting results. The opinions expressed in this important series are not necessarily those of Concerned Women for America. We offer it for your candid reflection.

This is the first of a series of columns I intend to write on "the next conservatism." In them, I will lay out where I think conservatism needs to go after the end of President George W. Bush's second term.

Some people may wonder about the theme, "the next conservatism." Isn't conservatism always the same? Don't we call ourselves conservatives because we believe in what Russell Kirk called "the permanent things," truths that hold for all time?

Of course we do. We believe that truth comes from God, who does not change. We hold certain beliefs, such as the impossibility of perfecting man or human society, which define conservatism in any period. In fundamentals, what was true for Russell Kirk was also true for Edmund Burke. We are not relativists. We do not hold that there is or can be a different "truth" for each time, place or person, depending on what is "true for them."

Yet it is also true that conservatism changes over time. Sometimes, that is because ideologies that are not really conservative try to disguise themselves with the conservative label (real conservatism is not an ideology at all). But more often, it is because new events face conservatives with new challenges. While our basic beliefs do not change, the circumstances to which we must apply those beliefs do. Burke and Churchill were both conservatives, but in the face of the French Revolution Burke stressed the importance of hierarchy and order, while under the threat of Nazism Churchill spoke of defending liberty. Their views were not contradictory, but the situations they faced were different.

If we look at the American conservative movement since World War II, we see that it has undergone a number of changes. In the early 1950s, conservatism was defined by Sen. Robert A. Taft. It meant a non-interventionist foreign policy (which has been mislabeled "isolationism"), a small federal government of limited powers, states' rights and scrupulous observance of the law (Taft opposed the Nuremburg Trials on the grounds that American law did not accept ex post facto justice). I continue to believe that much of what Sen. Taft stood for was correct.

However, with the coming of the Cold War, American conservatism headed in a somewhat different direction. Led by William F. Buckley and other thinkers associated with National Review, conservatives accepted the need for a large proactive military and extensive foreign alliances in order to counter the threat of Soviet communism. At the same time, conservatism adopted the economics previously known as liberalism: the belief that free markets and free trade are the best paths to national prosperity. Traditionally, conservatives had been for high tariffs. To some extent, in the late 1950s and the 1960s American conservatives also moved away from states' rights and strict construction and toward accepting a more active role for the federal government, especially in enforcing civil rights.

With the end of the Cold War around 1990, American conservatism changed again. Traditional conservatism was eclipsed by so-called neo-conservatism, which envisioned some form of American world empire in which America would bring "democratic capitalism" to every country on earth, whether they wanted it or not. This was really Wilsonianism, which traditionally was considered the opposite of conservatism.

That is where conservatism has been. Where does it need to go? I think new developments and new challenges will bring forth a "next conservatism" after President Bush leaves the White House. What that next conservatism might look like will be the subject of my upcoming columns.

Click here for the entire series.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles
Religious Art in a Post-Religious Culture
Sharing Godly Love This Holiday Season
From Slavery to Ministry
Lessons for Today from the Pilgrims
A Prayer for America's Future
CWA Field Director Honored with a Prestigious Appointment
Thanksgiving 2008 Proclamation by President Bush
Concerned Women for America Appoints Terri Johannessen State Director
New! CWA of SD Fall 2008 Newsletter
We Will Not Lose Heart

 

 
 

 

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives



 
    ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....