Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

February 4, 2008

In the Absence of a True Conservative, How About a True Leader?

Poor Ronald Reagan. What did he ever do to deserve his role in the 2008 presidential campaign? And how did his beloved conservative philosophy go from an optimistic vision for America to an angry basis for division between the “true” and the heretics?

The primary conservative theme of this election year is crystal clear. It’s the search for the True Conservative. Here’s how the True Conservative is defined:

1. He takes The Correct Conservative Stand on every issue.
2. Oh wait, there isn’t a No. 2. It’s all about No. 1.

So what’s wrong with that? Why vote for someone who doesn’t agree with you on the issues?

In theory, nothing is wrong with it, but here’s what has happened: The so-called base is fixated on the question of who qualifies for True Conservative status and who doesn’t. If you qualify (like Fred Thompson did), you’re a hero. If you don’t (like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani), you are a liberal and you must be stopped, lest you destroy America.

The problem with all this is twofold: First, while I am thoroughly convinced that conservative ideas are the best ideas, I like presidents who think for themselves and make the best decisions for the situation at hand. Being president is not about following a rulebook, not even The Official What-Would-Reagan-Do Conservative Rulebook.

Second, conservatism is a broad philosophy, not a laundry list of issue positions. Conservatism is about limited government, strong strategic defenses, free-market capitalism and the proper balance of individual liberties with the rule of law.

There is room for debate on how best to apply this philosophy to the issues of any given moment in time. I would not vote for anyone who rejects this broad philosophy outright, which eliminates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But conservatives have not always been correct about the best way to apply their philosophy.

The sainted Reagan favored amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget. The idea is non-existent today. Reagan signed an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants in 1986. Today, anyone who even supports President Bush’s idea of a path to citizenship is branded an apostate. But both Reagan and Bush believed the market needed these workers, and that the nation’s resources could not be expended in a round-them-up-and-send-them-home initiative. Who says conservative philosophy doesn’t provide room for either judgment?

My colleague Herman Cain favors the national consumption tax concept known as the FairTax. I think the idea has some merit, but I prefer to stick with the income tax model, albeit with much lower rates and a simplified code. Which of us is the True Conservative, and which is the America-hating socialist? Or are we both seeking pro-growth, free-market taxation policies, without quite agreeing on the best way to achieve a shared goal?

Before the winnowing of the presidential field, I voted for Rudy Giuliani in the Michigan primary. I am opposed to abortion and I believe a fetus deserves protection under the law. Giuliani wants to see as few abortions as possible, but does not favor making the procedure illegal. Many conservative activists have declared Giuliani a liberal on the basis of this issue alone, even though he touts supply-side economics and a strong defense, and even though his professed vision of fewer abortions actually occurred during his tenure as mayor of New York City.

It seems the conservative base has gotten itself twisted up in knots over issue positions and “stands,” and has lost sight of what we need our next president to do. The president’s job is not to take stands and win arguments with the left. It is to govern.

And governing from 2009 into the foreseeable future will most likely require the president to make decisions and deal with issues we are not even discussing at this point in time. Terrorism was hardly mentioned during the 2000 presidential campaign. But the fight against it has essentially defined the presidency of that year’s winner.

Anyone can tick off a laundry list of issue positions and be declared a True Conservative. That doesn’t automatically mean he is the best person to govern and lead.

Someone may embrace the conservative philosophy overall, but disagree with the movement’s conventional wisdom of the day on any number of issues. It is possible that conventional wisdom could be wrong, even if it is believed by lots of people whose overall philosophy is right.

I’m not looking for a True Conservative. I’m looking for a strong president of the United States who will be able to lead our nation through challenges we cannot predict. I don’t think that person is going to be a liberal. But if it’s a conservative who dares to tell the base it might be wrong about some things, or that some of the things it’s demanding might not be possible, those sound like characteristics of a True Leader to me.

This is Column # DC149.  Request permission to publish here.