Where Does the Conservative Movement Go from Here?
Derek Suszko
Derek Suszko is the Associate Editor of The St. Croix Review. This address was given as part of a panel discussion at the Annual Dinner of The St. Croix Review on October 25, 2024. It is published here with the writer’s elaborations.
Introduction
The question where does the conservative movement go from here? assumes that something has gone wrong with the “conservative movement.” Before we can answer the question, we must agree on what the “conservative movement” means in the first place. Conservatism, as a political term, has a long history, and means something different in American, British, and European contexts. The conservatism I would like to speak about is the one most familiar to Americans of the present day. It is the brand of “Reaganite conservatism” that has been the operating political philosophy for the Republican Party for over 40 years. Most people are familiar with the basic ideas of Reaganite conservatism: Limited government, except in the arena of national defense; low taxes and free trade; patriotic culture and traditional social structures. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was resoundingly elected on a platform of this kind of conservatism, and ever since then the “conservative coalition” of corporate interests and social traditionalists has reigned supreme over the politics of the American Right. In 2024, we have enough perspective to ask: How successful was this coalition over the last 44 years?
It seems to me that even the strongest Reaganite must admit that it was a failure. The American Left has run amok in the four decades since Reagan, seizing ideological control of the bureaucracies, the legal system, the universities, and the culture. I don’t think any true conservative can say that America is better in 2024 than it was in 1984. If American economic growth has continued relatively unabated over those 40 years, it has largely served to enhance the power of the leftist establishment and their centers of power. The American middle class continues to decline as elitist institutions and corporations cannibalize the independent prosperity of the average American citizen. Confronted by voracious political opposition, Reaganite conservatives failed to secure an American future worthy of the American past. It is easy and obvious to blame the unhinged Left for American decline, but as conservatives we must confront our own sins. Conservatism of the last 40 years failed totally. The question for us to ask is: Are the principles of Reaganite conservatism sound, and is the problem one of putting them into practice? Or is putting them into practice impossible, thus rendering the principles unsound? I answer for the second condition. Reaganite conservatism failed because it neglected basic truths about politics and people. Its ideas represented an idealism no less impracticable (though much more benign) than the destructive idealism of Marxism. To restore the immense damage done to the American people, and reverse our national decline, traditional conservatives must get beyond the Reaganite brand of conservatism. For clarity’s sake, I will not use the term “conservatism” to describe the new ideas that traditional conservatives must embrace. It is largely a misnomer anyways, since there is little left to truly “conserve.” Instead, I will use the term “restoration” and refer to the Reaganite ideas as “old conservatism.”
Old Conservatism and Why It Failed
The basic idea of old conservatism is that government should be limited as far as possible. This rings like a bad joke nowadays, since the American government has bloated beyond all bounds. It is a reality of our time and place in human history that our governments must be, by any calculation, “large.” The world is too complex, and in the United States the necessity of remaining the dominant world power requires a vast administration. In any event, none of the Republican administrations since 1980 reduced government in any meaningful way. Reagan, Bush II, and Trump all reduced government revenue in the form of tax cuts, but none of them reduced its power or sanction. In 2024 Trump and his allies now talk about improving government efficiency and not about curtailing government function. This is a tacit acceptance that the government must do pretty much all it that does, and the problem is how to do it in the most cost-effective and ideal way possible. The old conservatives never actually limited government, but this doesn’t mean that their notions on the matter had no impact. Since 1980 we have seen a seesaw effect in the alternating administrations: Republicans come to power and fail to use the government to tangibly aid their voters, then Democrats come to power and enlarge the government to help their voters, then Republicans fail to repeal what the Democrats put in place but still fail to help their voters, then Democrats come to power and enlarge government again to help their voters. The old conservatives can’t argue that limiting government is what would help their voters because they never actually did it. They allowed the Democrats to create new laws and institutions totally subservient to leftist ideologies, and neither repealed what the Democrats created or created counter-institutions for the benefit of conservative voters. Conservatives lost every culture battle, failed to cut spending, gave up every federal institution to leftists, and worst of all, provided not a single tangible benefit to the quality of life for the vast majority of their voters. And all through the decades of conservative impotence, leftist policies were tangibly harming these voters. How could this happen?
The old conservatives exalted the rational and neglected the real. What I mean by this is that the old conservatives failed to realize that their electoral success was due to a specific set of people with a specific set of concerns. They looked at economic numbers instead of examining the lives of their voters. They mistakenly believed their political coalition was based on theoretical “facts” and “objective economic principles” and neglected (until Trump) to cultivate the passion and communal solidarity among constituents that is necessary for real political success. Even in 2024, most Republican politicians actively loathe their voters, and hope to keep their grievances at bay by throwing them “red meat” on inconsequential cultural issues. They forget that a political coalition is nothing more than the people who compose it, and the duty of a political party is to tangibly improve the lives of the people who vote for it. This is all politics ever was or ever will be. Emotional appeals and talking points are important for instilling enthusiasm and camaraderie among a coalition, but rhetoric without tangible results devolves quickly into hypocrisy and propaganda. The Democrats understood all along that this is the authentic nature of politics, and that is why they reign supreme in the institutions of power. Certainly, Democrats are adept at disingenuous “propaganda,” but in a real sense, the Democrats of the last 40 years were faithful to the demands of their voting constituents. They simply never cared that fulfilling the demands of their voters is detrimental to the country as a whole. While the Democrats were imposing their will on the country and its institutions, conservatives sheepishly folded again and again. American “conservatism” became a byword for complacency and hesitancy to use political power for productive ends.
The Apathy of Old Conservatism
Besides practical shortcomings, the conservative movement contributed to a decline in the communal bond among Americans who trusted in its ideas. Taking a philosophical stand against “identity politics,” Reaganite conservatives strenuously avoided promoting any idea of the commonality and compositional integrity of their supporters or the American people at large. The movement ostracized forward-thinking mavericks like Pat Buchanan who sought to define the American nation and people by insisting on the bonds of blood, culture, and heritage. Instead, the old conservatives regarded the United States as an economic zone where anyone could live if they were useful to the bottom line. By endorsing free trade and rampant migration, the Republican donors won the benefits of cheap labor and higher profits, while the Republican voters witnessed the decline of blue-collar industry, inflation, wage stagnation, and shrinking job markets. And these economic effects tell only part of the story. Deprived of a meaningful collective identity, American rural culture descended into anti-family hedonism, marked by divorce, broken homes, collapsing birth rates, drug addiction, aimlessness, suicide, and ghost towns. The people of the American heartland, who voted for Republicans year after year, meant less to their leaders than the itinerant Mexican migrant worker, or the Indian data scientist. The apathy exhibited by conservatives of the last 40 years towards the people they ought to have loved the most is tragic and unconscionable. It is the biggest reason for the electoral triumphs of Donald Trump and the rise of populism. Human nature requires communal identity. A political perspective which attempts to deny this to a people is doomed to foster alienation and suffer repudiation. Americans are a real people with a shared culture and history, and a vision of life unique to themselves. Not only did the old conservatives help the leftists destroy the people of the American heartland economically, but they shamed their voters as “racist” or “xenophobic” for insisting on their unique attachment and identification with the American nation. This apathy was the cardinal sin of Reaganite conservatives. They watched idly and approvingly as the American people became an afterthought in the land of their fathers.
The Principles of Restoration
What the United States needs now is not a conservative movement but a restoration movement. Restoration is different from conservatism in important ways. Unlike the old conservatives, I don’t believe that government is a “necessary evil.” Government can be a source for great good in the right hands. The American government is the upholder of the covenant of the American Founding. It has real duties to uplift the American people and improve their lives. There is a deep callousness in the insistence of the old conservatives on “self-reliance” and “individualism” in the face of decades of destructive leftist policies that concentrated power and opportunities for social advancement in the enclaves of preferred racial and ideological identity groups. The history of the last 40 years of American politics is the story of the “plundering of the middle,” in both geographic and economic terms. Government power in evil hands degraded the people of the American heartland, but government power in good hands can resurrect them again. Such power can only be entrusted to leaders faithful to the American covenant. What is the American covenant? Those citizens who act in ways beneficial to the stability and prosperity of the United States, and those who preserve the heritage of its culture, deserve the preference and support of the American government. This ought to be the universal pledge of a government to its people, and this pledge is essential for a nation’s survival. But American political leaders from both parties have neglected America’s sustaining citizens for the last half century. As in Western Europe, the government of the United States for the last two generations has been the enemy of its own people. Conservatives are almost as much responsible for this fact as leftists. The United States is not an abstraction or an economic zone. It is a nation founded by Anglo-Saxon stock and informed by the glories of Western civilization. For over half a century, propaganda has worked to slander Westerners or “whites” as the exploitative villains of history. The old conservatives refused to “see race” and so failed to see the terrible effects of vicious anti-white propaganda, globalism, and discriminatory admissions and hiring on Americans of the heartland. The catastrophe only exacerbates. The American dream is dying for millions of men and women whose ancestors worked to secure it for them. They are the rejected cornerstones, and they cry out for restoration
What is American restoration? What does it look like? Restoration is the resurrection of the American middle class. The problems of the American middle-class today are not only economic but are also social. Pressed on all sides by the destructive incentives of technology and propaganda, young Americans aren’t getting married, aren’t having children, aren’t buying homes, aren’t advancing in the workplace, and aren’t living fulfilling lives. Social relations between men and women are a disaster. Too many men are lonely and aimless, and too many women are anxious and resentful. Religious belief is declining, and even where it is not, the corrosive effects of modernism are infecting the churches. The ideas of old conservatism are inadequate for dealing with our broken society. We must move on from empty appeals to “limited government,” “propositional nation,” and “individualism.” My aim is to restore my people, and to use government policy to do so. What policies would a restoration platform pursue? A restoration government must actively subsidize family formation and childbearing among the middle class. Married couples that have three children should be awarded homeownership. Public funding for education and healthcare must go directly to citizens and not through bloated and wasteful bureaucracies. Discrimination in the universities must end, or they should be divested. Admissions and hirings must not go to foreigners or to unqualified DEI applicants but to the Americans who most merit advancement. Illegal aliens must be thoroughly deported, and birth-right citizenship expunged. Tariffs must protect American industry, and the United States must become oil independent. The “shadow power” of the deep state bureaucracies must be exposed and crushed. The election of Trump is a good sign for the prospects of restoration. But there is a lot of work to do. Even with Trump as the leader of the party few populist policies can be found in the official Republican platform. The influence of the old conservatives is still very strong. I wish they would reflect on the 40 years of conservative failure and admit (for the good of the American people) that the Republican Party must become the party of populism and middle-class restoration. The party can never go backwards from Trump. Trump is the first politician of my lifetime to understand the architecture of the American people in their aspirations and essential nature. But Trump is only the beginning. The road to American restoration will span many decades and will face savage opposition. That road starts by looking within, at our own failings as conservatives, and adjusting our ideas to our people.
Conclusion
The philosophical differences between the ideas of restoration and old conservatism should be clear. Though I reject the term for its associations I maintain that in the truest sense I am a conservative. I cherish the American people and their love for their homeland. I seek to improve their lives in tangible ways and to rekindle their communal fellowship with their countrymen. I am not reluctant to use the powers of the government for that purpose. In fact, I believe that the government is the only real engine of solution. For decades, conservatives disparaged government when they ought to have disparaged bad leaders. Good leaders with a real love for their people can reverse American decline and restore the greatness of her middle class. That love was never there with the leaders of old conservatism after Reagan and that is why the movement failed. Let us learn from the mistakes of old conservatism and reject any attempts to return to it. The time has come for a restorative politics to assert itself with boldness in defense of the American people and their way of life. By strength and by love, it will prevail. *
