There is a very good reason conservatives are called that, and it is not, as the left often claims, in an attachment to the past. It is because conservatives, quite rightly, recognize the limits of man and his intellect. many may be a wonderful creation, and the human intellect is a remarkable tool, but it is also far from perfect. And that was the principle both behind the constitution and in the government of our nation for most of the first century. Changes were to be made, but they were made in small increments, within a framework of existing laws, because radical changes introduce the possibility of all kinds of unforeseen consequences.

It is a fact little noted by those who comment on the Constitution, but that is a very conservative document. Changes are possible, but almost everything in the Constitution exists to make change difficult. Look at how hard ti is to override a presidential veto. Or how much harder it is to change the Constitution. The document exists to allow legislators to make new laws, but it also has many, many brakes on ill considered actions, devices built in to make sure changes are stopped before they can do harm.

And conservatives were, until recently, the party that espoused that view. They were not the "revolutionaries", they appreciated the existing system, even after it was crippled by Wilson and FDR, so much that they would rather see it slowly repaired than risk the unknown consequences of a rapid reversion to the past. Even Reagan did not enact wholesale changes. He caused more governmental reform than any modern conservative, but he did it slowly, methodically. That is what conservatism meant until recent times.

However, that all changed with the birth of the "Angry Right". Seeing the success the left had with their street fighting dirty tactics, their constant campaigning, their maligning of opponents and their calls for radical change above all else, they started to adopt some of those immature positions. Refusing to vote for the "lesser of two evils" (forgetting the alternative is to vote for the greater), they rejected the idea of reforming the Republican Party from within, rejected the idea of incremental repeal of the many statist measures, and started to indulge in juvenile fantasies of "uprisings" and "revolts". And, sadly, this bled over into the political arena, where more staid conservatives also began to reject "half measures", adopting an "all or nothing" position, which almost always translated into "nothing".

However, the negative political consequences of this policy are secondary. Even if it had paid political dividends it would trouble me. Why? Because it so strongly opposes the traditional conservative tendency. Conservatism has stood the test of time precisely because it has been so slow to allow change. Rapid change is almost inevitably dangerous, with unforeseen consequences far outnumbering known outcomes, and with harm almost always outweighing benefit. And once conservatives forget this tendency we have lost our heart, our identity. If we, as conservatives, or Republicans, or, that rarest of all creatures, conservative Republicans, reject the idea of humility, of respect for the past, of experience, and a wariness of rapid, radical change, then we are nothing but the Libertarian Party with congressional seats.

POSTSCRIPT

By the way, to those who point to the American Revolution as a radical action or call the founders "revolutionaries", I suggest they read their history again and examine how many attempts at compromise preceded that decisive break, and how many of the Founders pronounced it "unthinkable" that we would ever split with the mother country. They may have eventually revolted, but the Founders did everything they could to maintain our pre-Revolution identity. We have to this day state law based on English common law, we speak English, we in all ways remain the colonies England established in the new world. We may have stopped swearing fealty to the King of England, but that was effectively the only break with our colonial identity. The American Revolution may have produced a radically new government, but it was in all other respects the most conservative of revolutions.

POSTSCRIPT II

And for those who will rightly point out that in many areas, for example monetary policy, that I call for radical change, I plead guilty. However, I expect that in reality the chance of my pleas being heard is just shy of zero. Even if we planned to return to free banking and gold, I would expect the process would be a gradual one, starting with gold redemption for currency and slowing of inflation, followed by a break up of the Fed into a less centralized cartel of semi-private banks, and then ending with the restoration of full gold currency and privatization of banks. So, while I have a radical goal in mind, I expect to reach it through small steps.

POSTSCRIPT III

I know many conservatives are unhappy with my equation of conservatives and Republicans, but, viewed with any sort of objectivity, the Republican Party is the only viable vehicle for a conservative political movement in this nation. Of course it is far from uniformly conservative, and far from perfect, but that is true of any political party.

Actually, I think the rejection of the Republicans and the flight into third parties is yet another symptom of conservative impatience. Confronted with a party which does not match all their ideas, they do not choose to reform slowly form within, but simply reject it and look for a party which matches their own ideas. And so we have dozens of impotent conservative parties which serve no end but to siphon off a handful of votes while also silencing the conservative voices for reform within the party.