The questioning of Reagan’s conservatism, or rather, the meaning of Reagan’s ascent and legacy, has been reasonably well formulated a few times in the last couple years; Gamble’s piece in “The American Conservative” was nice, for instance. But yours gives us the fundamental set of questions necessary to outline both a critique of Reagan and to chart a course forward (temporally) and backward (to our true roots).

As for the term “conservatism,” what happened to that fine compound word of Beer/Kauffman vintage — “Reactionary Radicals”?

I suppose if we all start calling ourselves Reactionary Radical Distributist Traditionalists we shall wind up even farther on the margins of contemporary debate than we already are. If, I mean, such is possible.

I used to summarize my politics by saying simply, “I am a Catholic.” That no longer says much, and I had thought “Conservative Catholic” might clarify by ensuring no one mistook me for the Jesuit “educated.” Maybe I’ll add “Papist” to the above multi-part epithet and call it a day.

These are certainly important questions to ask, and I would generally assert that the answer should be “No” in almost every case. That being said, it is difficult to answer these questions as long as the terms employed remain theoretical. While this is not as much a problem when asking whether commitments to faith and family have become stronger or weaker, it becomes more problematic when asking questions about community. “Community” itself is an abstraction and, where it does exist, its members rarely see themselves as acting “communally” as much as they see themselves as acting “naturally”. Because of this, in relation to the state, it would seem that the weakening of communities issues from the state’s actions on specific occasions rather than through general actions; the Amish constitute a strong and self-conscious community, but few begrudge them their communal habits. It is the communities that incite controversy, such as Jim Jones’s Jonestown, that come into direct conflict with the state. I know that this is the sort of community to which your post refers, but the main point is that when we ask whether “we have strengthened communities” discussing “communities” abstractly won’t do, for we need to determine in what the contemporary community consists, whether or not this or that community is worth strengthening and how it should best be strengthened.

Another problem seems to me that the conservative ideals which you offer up–faith, family, community–are assumed to be consistent; but this is not always the case. Christianity, for instance, is cosmopolitan rather than communal and interpersonal rather than familial. It was not Karl Marx who said “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me”. It is true that stronger families, particularly those with a historical awareness, tend to make for a stronger state, but the family is also–at times–a competitor for loyalty that can endanger the very existence of the state. (One example of this materialized during the near-civil war in Iraq when blood feuds lead to parliamentary stagnation.)

I would say that the conclusion one should draw from this is that there is no perfect hierarchy of virtues to a conservative order; only a balance which always addresses itself to an unchanging human nature but also is informed by the fact that this unchanging nature is constantly altering in reference to an evolving world.

This is not to say that “policy writing” is in itself a bad thing. It is to say that expecting the policy notions of a “collective” to keep the population of a town from penury is a proven farrago. High hopes and best intentions do not an entrepot make. Bridgeport , Ct., the recipient of thousands of pages of ‘policy making” remains a sink of moribund decline because the fundamental economic life that is the basis of any city is dysfunctional and heavily weighted….somewhere in the vicinity of 60% to “non-profit public assistance…the front lines of “policy-making”.

Still though, Reagan’s meetings with Gorbachev were epic and the man reckoned with his tidily held presumptions, altered his personal outlook and worked in an earnest manner to end the Cold War and this effort alone…his brilliant stage craft at Iceland and his ability to treat openly with those he had reviled…to disarm them with an essential humanity….this was a level of statesmanship that is not to be gone unnoticed nor withheld from due honor.

Instead of discussing “conservative” vs. “liberal” politics in the current atmosphere of appearances rule politics, one might better serve their time by reading “Alice in Wonderland”.

Conservatives are much more likely than liberals/progressives to speak of the tragic nature of human endeavors, that man is not infinitely prefectable, and that things go awry, in any event. You could call this a “Shakespearean conservatism.” The one thing that will survive the times we are living in is basic human values, which are reflected in world literature. We are again living in historical times. Even liberals sense this and produce movies like National Treasure, which however faulty in their use of history, nonetheless evoke the resonanse of historical sources, tokens and voices.

Tim of Angle, there is indeed an enormous amount of weight being borne by the idea of change being “rightly guided” (as Steve K. points out). Who is to properly guide the change? Aren’t many conservatives fearful of the heavy hand of government – particularly in the market, where much of modern change is generated? Isn’t the valorization of the market, in fact, the fervent embrace of unguided change by many so-called conservatives? I see little evidence among most mainstream conservatives evincing thought over the best way to restrain the pace and guide the direction of change, at least as far as the market is concerned. An unwillingness to do so means that conservatives can continue to expect to lose most of the battles over which they DO want to exercise some control (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, etc.). Liberalism has always been based on the belief – borne out in practice – that liberalization follows the ability of the market to eviscerate the restraints of custom and tradition. One need simply read the true paragraphs that open Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” to understand the true power and logic of the market’s corrosive effects. And I say that (note to Peter Lawler) without wanting to endorse most of what Marx otherwise wrote.