A Failure of Courage

During the 1930’s, Winston Churchill wandered the political wilderness.  Untrusted by every political party, his warnings about Nazism went unheeded.  Dismissed as a radical warmonger, most onlookers were convinced that his electoral future was bleak.

Then came WWII.  Called upon to save his nation, he vowed to fight the enemy on the beaches—and everywhere else.  But many still considered him a dangerous fanatic.  After all, the war was already lost; hence the sensible course was to make peace with Herr Hitler.

Ronald Reagan too spent years as an outcast.  His defense of conservatism was ridiculed as years out-of-date.  However eloquent he might sound, as a has-been actor, he was merely a ventriloquist’s dummy.

Then, once Reagan became president and continued to warn about the evil empire, his irrationality was confirmed.  After he doubled-down on a missile defense against a nuclear attack, he was roundly derided for adopting his farcical “star wars.”

Each of these leaders was out of step.  Both sought to protect their nations from real dangers, but were scorned for their troubles.  Yet both survived their ostracism and made a huge difference.

Why don’t contemporary conservatives demonstrate comparable courage?  Why are they so afraid of offending the electorate that they capitulate the moment the polls turn against them?  Don’t principles count?

If, as I have earlier argued, we are in the midst of an ideological crisis, then this condition afflicts conservatives as much as it does liberals.  The liberal predicament has been revealed by persistent incompetence and dishonesty.  The conservative dilemma, in contrast, has been exposed by a failure of nerve.

Although many conservatives believe what they say, they are not prepared to risk their careers over it.  Merely hint that they will be blamed for shutting down the government and they fold their tents.  God forbid they should lose an election and be cast into the same netherworld as Churchill or Reagan.

So why are conservatives such cowards?  Sadly, it is for the same reason that liberals are so treacherous.  They too are victimized by an out-of-date idea system.  But whereas liberals defend theirs with a bodyguard of lies, conservatives abandon theirs to lip service and empty gestures.

Neither religious nor free-market conservatives truly trust the causes they espouse.  Thus the best they can manage against impending bankruptcy and/or nuclear annihilation are rear guard actions.

Most conservative Americans are religious, but in a half-hearted secular way.  They do not believe with the passion their ancestors mustered.  And thank goodness.  The Puritans who settled New England were an intolerant lot.  If a person disagreed with their code, he or she risked banishment to a real wilderness.

Remember, it was a mere three hundred years ago that Europeans and their American cousins were executing each other over theological issues.   As a consequence, had we not moved on and disestablished our churches, we too might be as bloodthirsty as ISIS.

Nor has an unfettered economic marketplace remained an unambiguous ideal.  We learned from the robber barons that unregulated capitalism could be corrupt and cruel.  Although the libertarians insist that totally free enterprise can solve virtually every problem, even they know it is not a sovereign remedy for loneliness or demagoguery.

And so conservatives dither.  They correctly diagnose the perfidy and hypocrisy of liberals, but do not possess an alternative to which they are sincerely dedicated.  In this sense, they really have been the party of No.

What is therefore needed is a new vision of who we are and where we are headed.  We must understand our world in terms that suit our challenges.  Yes, progressive centralization has demonstrated a frightening grandiosity.  But No, reanimating Adam Smith or John Calvin will not rescue us from it.

Our mass techno-commercial society demands individual responsibility.  Decentralization and personal liberty are indeed vital to its survival.  Nonetheless, these must be fashioned to meet our needs—not those of our great-great-grandparents.  And we must have the courage to defend them!

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University