I stumbled upon this great essay on Intercollegiate Review about a month ago and saved it to write about it later. Well to put it simply, Yuval Levin cast a wide net and a wet blanket on the Republicans hopes to take back the White House and keep hold of Congress next year. He focuses on what are the true concepts of American Conservativism and how Republicans plack the ability to clearly explain it’s true benefits in relation to American Liberalism. It is a great reflection based on his recent book; which, I haven’t read but I hear is wonderful.
Mr. Levin makes the great case that conservatives in America need to push for a separation of the individual from the State, a classic look at Burkean Conservativism:
The goal of conservatives in national politics cannot just be to have less of the same: the liberal welfare state at a slightly lower cost. The goal, rather, should be to transform American government along conservative lines, into a government that works to sustain and expand the space between the individual and the state; to strengthen the family, civil society, and the market economy and make their benefits accessible to more Americans; to help the poor not with an empty promise of material equality but with a fervent commitment to upward mobility; and to strengthen the middle class by lifting needless burdens off the shoulders of parents and workers.
Now several commenters pointed out that the essay lacked the focus of a explanatory clause; even though, he explains that they both can benefit from the individual’s growth and successes. A direct counter-thought to the current and widespread dependency by both on each other; leading to a parasitic relationship without beneficial sustainability. eternal question of how to promote the growth and productive success of middle class entrepreneurial How do we get to the Conservative movement’s moment of sustainable individualism with inherent nationalism as a copacetic dirivitive. Here is the closest Mr. Levin gets to that point:
To achieve that (a firm understanding of the future of American Conservatism), conservatives must first gain a better understanding of exactly what we have to offer. We must make the political appeal of American
conservatism—the face we put before the public—significantly more conservative, and therefore both more principled and more practical. We must each be a witness for a vision of the good life worthy of the name.
Therein, lays the conundrum. If regionalism is taken out of the conservative playbook a singular voice can be found; however, waiting till next summer’s convention is too late. We need another Cooper Union Speech. We need a voice that paints a tapestry of what America truly is at her core and expounds on those ideals.