For the Doubting Conservatives: "It's Hard Work"

So, how does a principled conservative or libertarian vote in this presidential race? Many of us have become somewhat disillusioned with President Bush's policies over the past four years, to the point that some are thinking of voting for third party candidates or even for Senator Kerry. For example:

Federal spending has increased at a faster rate than under any President since Lyndon Johnson.

The National Endowment for the Arts has become more well-endowed than ever, after being slated for elimination when the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

The No Child Left Behind Act has implemented some "conservative" reforms, but at the expense of a huge increase in the the Department of Education's budget, a department that President Reagan and others in the conservative movement wanted to eliminate.

Reforms to Medicare, including the new prescription drug benefit, are not exactly what conservatives had in mind. The new benefit already is promising to be much more expensive than the administration promised.

Protectionism, in the form of tariffs on steel and textiles, has often secured the President's approval.

The President signed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (McCain-Feingold), which put into place the most stringent restrictions on free political speech since the Sedition Act of 1798.

On the other hand, there are many reasons for conservatives to be happy with this President. He has restored lost respect to the Office of the President. He has appointed strict constructionists to the judiciary. He proposed and signed several tax cut measures that have helped free the invisible hand of U.S. economy to work its magic. He has signed free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, Jordan, Singapore, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. He has opposed federal funding for abortion and supported restrictions on partial-birth abortion. He has stood firm against the imposition of same-sex marriage by the judiciary. He has opposed the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court. He has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, which prevented the U.S. from developing missile defense capabilities. He has correctly identified the enemies to freedom around the world - Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-Jong, and the Ayatollah Khamenei.

So, President Bush has given plenty of reasons to stand with him on Election Day, and many reasons to seek an alternative. Conservatives have faced this kind of decision before. Even President Reagan, who is idolized on the right today, inspired his share of disappointment among the conservatives that formed his base. He was too easy on Gorbachev. He caved in to the Democrats on tax increases. He caved on the minimum wage. He supported import quotas on Japanese goods. He allowed his adminstration to trade arms for hostages. He appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. He failed to roll back the size and scope of the federal government. The list goes on.

At some point, though, conservatives have to face political reality. The fact is that we are in the minority on many issues. The challenge before us is to build a majority, but as much as we would like it to, that doesn't happen overnight. It's "hard work," as the President might say, and it will take persuasiveness and perseverence.

William F. Buckley stated in 1955 that his new conservative publication, National Review, would "stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it." He may have been more eloquent, but he said essentially the same thing that President Bush did, many times, in his debates with Senator Kerry: "It's hard work."

Conservatives in 1955 stood in the wake of the New Deal and were disillusioned that its philosophical underpinnings had gained such widespread acceptance among the general population. They lived in a day in which Communism was held in the utmost respect among the so-called intellectuals on the left. The conservatives were split between those Buckley called the "irresponsible Right," most notably the John Birchers, and those, like himself, who were more moderate in demeanor, if not in politics. So it was that Buckley discerned that his own magazine was "out of place" among its contemporaries. Even so, the 29-year-old William F. Buckley said, "Yet we start with a considerable — and considered — optimism." That same optimism was what allowed President Reagan to persuade so many Americans, young and old, that "this ain't your daddy's conservatism." Reagan's optimism propelled him to the Presidency in 1980, and led him to win 49 states in the 1984 election against Walter Mondale.

The conservatism of Buckley, and of Reagan, was a revival of sorts. It reached inward to recover America's lost confidence in what Russell Kirk called "the politics of prescription." In Kirk's words,

Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary.

It also reached outward, unafraid of progress and embracing the potential of man's diversity.

The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body. A body that has ceased to renew itself has begun to die. But if that body is to be vigorous, the change must occur in a regular manner, harmonizing with the form and nature of that body; otherwise change produces a monstrous growth, a cancer, which devours its host. The conservative takes care that nothing in a society should ever be wholly old, and that nothing should ever be wholly new. This is the means of the conservation of a nation, quite as it is the means of conservation of a living organism. Just how much change a society requires, and what sort of change, depend upon the circumstances of an age and a nation.

Today, conservatives have to make a realistic assessment of the "circumstances of our age and our nation" in judging who is the best candidate to fulfill the duties of President. This is not a time for protest or posturing, but rather for honoring our obligation to preserve the freedom that is the birthright of all Americans. For conservatives, the choice is clear. Even if four years from now, lots of "hard work" remains, we have to support President Bush at the polls today.