You don’t go into battle with your forces divided, not if you expect to win. That’s something those still constructing the intellectual underpinnings of the upcoming midterms would do well to remember.
Successful movements thrive on division, like iron sharpens iron, as long as everything comes together at the end. When it doesn’t, you get an election like 1992 in which George H. W. Bush, having violated his singular promise to oppose the Democrats in their efforts to raise taxes, split the movement that put him in office and allowed a transmogrified liberal to win the White House.
They’d do best not to make that mistake again. Avoiding it will require a level of mature thinking that many contemporary conservative leaders and their followers have yet to demonstrate they can engage in. There’s still time to implement the changes necessary, but it’s running out.
Conservatives have known from the beginning that, like Richard Nixon, Donald J. Trump’s presidency would be transactional rather than ideological. Decisions would be made according to what was best at the time rather than according to what people in the Reagan years would call “first principles.”
That’s proven a challenge as Trump has moved away from, and some would go so far as to say upended, traditional conservative positions on trade, traditional values, and other issues at which the Reaganites and the Bushies used to go at it, hammer and tongs.
That drift, if one can call it that, has spread to the organizational level to the point that groups once considered stalwart supporters of policies producing economic growth, a strong national defense, and cultural norms grounded in the historic American experience are now seen as apostates.
As an intellectual or ideological matter, there may be some validity to the charge. Yet political movements that fail to innovate and adapt become stagnant. Times change, and political coalitions must change with them in order to remain healthy. Stagnant movements die, as the Tories in Britain will no doubt attest. And when was the last time anyone ran across a Whig, let alone a Federalist?
As a political matter, divisions like what we’re now seeing on the American right threaten to put the left in power by default. Taking the focus off the objectives of the collectivists, who are the real enemies of free markets and free minds, to wage war amongst ourselves creates a circular firing squad that is toxic as well as self-destructive. If the right wants to accomplish anything in the time that remains in President Trump’s term of office, it can’t waste energy at war with itself. A movement divided cannot win elections and make real, lasting change.
This is not an issue of Trumpolitics alone. It began years ago, when some of the brighter minds on the right tried to blend the various factions of what was once called “the movement” into an army that, in fact, did march in lockstep on every issue, as the New York Times and other liberal media outlets had for years suggested.
Unity on an issue is essential for victory. Unity across all issues only shrinks your vote rather than expanding it, something veteran campaign consultant Roger Stone famously said must be the objective of every campaign. Conservatism has always included different priorities and ideas. That’s its strength. Allowing healthy debate to evolve to the point that institutions are being torn down is an irreversible mistake. An example of that is the misguided, in some cases unfounded, attacks on The Heritage Foundation by ambitious activists with pretensions of leadership.
Its legacy matters. It’s not just another Washington think tank. Since its founding by Dr. Edwin Feulner and Paul Weyrich, it’s been an intellectual stronghold that has pushed ideas such as pro-growth tax policy, sensible regulation, fiscal discipline, a strong military, and respect for the Constitution back into the mainstream of American political thought, where they belong.
That’s not to say that Heritage isn’t above criticism. No serious institution is or should be. It’s fair to debate its positions, question its choices, and challenge its direction. That’s healthy. Heritage has made some significant, costly mistakes, just like any influential institution, but there’s a big difference between criticism and destruction.
Disagreement isn’t the same as disloyalty, and frustration isn’t a reason to tear down institutions that have served us well. Conservatives must focus on winning, governing, and building strong majorities. Fighting each other only gets in the way.
The Heritage Foundation is bigger than any one controversy, any one leader, or any one factional fight. The supporters of Reagan and the Bushes and Trump should support it, strengthen it, and ensure it remains vital for decades to come. If it becomes the first domino to fall, the left will cheer. And those on the right who ought to know better shouldn’t be surprised when they turn around one day and discover there is nothing left to lead.
A veteran journalist and commentator, Peter Roff regularly produces commentary on current political and public policy matters. You can reach him at [email protected] and follow him on social media @TheRoffDraft.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
