Conservative reform won't come soon

David Brooks sees things getting darker for the Right in the short term, for structural reasons. The conservative Old Guard (called "Traditionalists" by Brooks) sees the way forward as continuing to do the same thing, only with greater gusto. And on the competing side? Excerpt:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

The Reformist view is articulated most fully by books, such as "Comeback" by David Frum and "Grand New Party" by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, as well as the various writings of people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin, Jim Manzi, Rod Dreher, Peggy Noonan and, at the moderate edge, me.

The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the G.O.P.

That's because, Brooks argues, the Old Guard holds complete sway in Congress, as well as the institutional high ground. There are no reformist conservative think tanks, no one among the conservative activist groups who has any scratch in changing the way we think to adjust to new realities. To do so, in my view, would require them to put at risk their donor networks and their bread and butter. Like any elite in a decadent hierarchy, they have come to see their interests as one and the same as the interest of the institution (in this case, the movement) they supposedly serve. As Brooks acidly but correctly observes:

Most professional conservatives are lifelong Washingtonians who live comfortably as organization heads, lobbyists and publicists. Their supposed heroism consists of living inside the large conservative cocoon and telling each other things they already agree with. But this embattled-movement mythology provides a rationale for crushing dissent, purging deviationists and enforcing doctrinal purity. It has allowed the old leaders to define who is a true conservative and who is not. It has enabled them to maintain control of (an ever more rigid) movement.

Let me make a point that's going to be overlooked among secular conservatives of Reformist impulse: no conservative movement that hopes to be successful can do so without religious conservatives. It will be very easy for secular Reform conservatives to sell op-ed pieces to newspapers, in which they argue that the GOP will not be revived until and unless it cuts itself free from the Religious Right. It'll be easy for them to sell that point because it suits the prejudices of the kind of secular liberals who run the media. But it's quite wrong.

As the Southern Baptist leader Richard Land points out in today's Wall Street Journal, religious conservatives can easily move toward a Reform agenda that keeps them faithful to their core principles. Indeed, my entire "Crunchy Cons" book and its reformist ideas is based in my religious conservatism. The key will be to convert Evangelicals, observant Catholics and other religious conservatives to a conservative Reform agenda. The emerging leadership class among younger Evangelicals totally get this. When I wrote my original Crunchy Cons cover story for National Review, I heard from an Evangelical seminarian who said Jim Wallis had just been to speak to their class, and everyone there had agreed with what Jim had to say about addressing poverty and the environment as part of our Christian commitment -- but they couldn't take that last step Jim asked them to, and embrace a progressive Democratic agenda, because, said this seminarian to me, "We're pro-life conservatives."