Defining The New Conservatism Part I

By: Guest Authors

By: Chad MacINNES

Part I: Properly Redefining the Left and Right

Now that the election is over and the American people have spoken, the task for the Right becomes at once obvious. That first task, ultimately, is to find and define itself – and to do so as expeditiously as is practicable. This much is obvious. What is not so obvious, of course, is how this all-important task will be or ought to be accomplished – if at all.

To the question of whether this can even be accomplished, whether or not a new conservatism can be first, defined, and second, molded into a cohesive movement solid enough to accomplish what it must, that being nothing less than arresting the rise of tyranny and arbitrary government through the advancement of government-imposed socialism, I would submit that it can only be accomplished outside of the duopolistic hegemony of the current mainstream party system. The cause of the new conservatism must be begun and advanced wholly and entirely apart from the Republican Party. More pointedly, the new conservatism must be held as sacred and kept secure from contamination by the Republican Party, because for the foreseeable future, that Party, even if it survives its current implosion, will continue to be entirely void of true conservatism and, as such, poison to any true conservative movement that has the unfortunate occasion to be defined as affiliate with it.

To succeed, the new conservatism must find a home where it is wanted – outside the mainstream of politics and nonsensical parties – in the realm of what we recognize as third parties, such as Libertarian, Constitution, Conservative, etc. Indeed, it would be most beneficial to the larger movement to have members and activists within all of these third parties taking responsible and active roles in defining the path and goals of the new conservatism, for healthy debate amongst the various legitimate schools of conservative thought and discussion and proper understanding of the significance of the varying trends and norms from the various parts of the nation will be essential to the success of such a movement. That much is, or at least ought to be, obvious.

What is also obvious is that in its infancy this new conservatism and the war it wages will be largely a war of words, that is, words employed to convey and explicitly define ideas both for our side as well as for the opposition. Thus, it is essential in this war of words to not be the one defined by the rods of the other, but to first define the other employing those words that best convey the message intended.

To that end, I would suggest a definition of this new conservatism: that socio-economic and socio-political thought which is analogous to the classical liberalism of such great minds as Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, von Mises, Hayek, Hume, Locke, Bastiat, Montesquieu, etc. I suggest this particular definition for, while it is necessary to divest ourselves of any connection whatsoever to the “nouveaux” or simply “faux” conservatism currently embraced by the Republican Party and its surrogates, it is just as necessary – if not even more so – to define how the opposition is intended by us to be perceived. I do not intend to suggest that any sort of deliberate deception be employed to that effect; on the contrary, I submit that the language and terminology employed be selectively vetted so as to best convey truth, for if it is truth that is the very essence of what we wish convey to the general populous, then if we should employ duplicity and deception to as to achieve our end, then the truth becomes that we are no more righteous than those who would oppress us, and thus the intended affect is obviously lost. It must be, then, that this war or words be fought from the very beginning with the overtly expressed desire and intent to shine ever brightly the light of truth so as to expose the darkness of the authoritarian form of socialism that surely awaits us given the current trend toward “change” at any cost. If the people will not accept truth and still choose willfully to subject themselves to tyranny, only then ought other, more questionable methods and tactics be employed.

Having stated that, then, and keeping in line with professing the truth of the current political climate, my conclusion and suggestion is to redefine the Progressive Left not as they would define themselves (the Progressive Left) but as what they are: new-socialists. To be sure, they are not “progressive” in any sense of the word, with the possible exception of the fact that their “newness” is found in bringing socialism to the United States for the first time. They are, in fact, “regressive,” falling back to the worn rhetoric and failed socialism of past ages – all of which has ruined the respective societies that have embraced such ideas. They cannot be called “liberal” because true “liberalism” is found in the newness of the great minds listed above.

“Liberalism,” in the classical sense, is analogous to the advancement of new ideas and the promotion of Liberty. It goes without saying that the present self-proclaimed “Progressives” are anything but open to dialogue and advancement of new ideas. Therefore it is all the more fitting to tag them with the most appropriate label and effectively chain them to the erroneous ideology they embrace as their truth, and which is wholly and entirely antithetical to the principles upon which our Constitution is founded: The Democrat Party ought now be termed the “Neo-Socialist Left,” with all the negative connotations of regressivism inherent in such language.

To be sure, those of us advancing the New Conservatism should not shy away from defining the Neo-Socialist Left as such but should immediately adopt such terminology and employ it to the benefit of our cause. Likewise, we should not resist embracing new or, for that matter, old language to clearly define our ideas. Therefore we should not be ashamed to employ such terminology as “Classical Liberalism” or a “Liberalism of the Classical School” in conjunction with the use of the word “conservatism” to that the desired perception be projected. Indeed, the words themselves attest to the truth we seek to convey. Thus, it is our present duty to properly employ them to our desired end.

Chad MacINNES is an independent conservative author who originally hails from Massachusetts and is now living in Orlando Florida with his wife and children. He is a former pilot for a large US carrier, a former police officer and a veteran of the US Army where, incidentally, he was cured of his disordered liberalism. He has studied politics and government, international relations, philosophy and theology. His blog may be found at Chad is a frequent contributor to and may be contacted via email at He is presently working on his first book, “The Next Republic,” a political, societal and economic analysis of the threat to individual liberty in America and what must be done to restore it.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.