Modcon?

What's a Modcon?

Modcon is, of course, short for Modern Conservative. So, one might say that if you are a user or a member of ModernConservative.com, you are a Modcon. And if that's where it stopped, we would be quite happy with that definition.

But let's think bigger than that for a moment---a lot bigger. Let's spend a little time thinking about the labels by which we define ourselves politically.

Political labels are important. They circumscribe the ideological viewpoints that fuel the engine of political discourse. Here are the most important of them:

--A Republican or a Democrat is a member of one of the two main political parties in the U.S.

--Conservative and Liberal describe, more generally, the two sides of the political spectrum.

--Right Wing and Left Wing tend to describe the further ends of the political spectrum.

--There are other terms too, such as Paleoconservative and Neoconservative on the right side and Radical, Progressive, and Third-way on the left side.

As conservatives, we are concerned with the right side of the spectrum, so we'd like to start there.

However, before we begin to parse terminology and explore the various subgroups of the conservative movement, it is VERY IMPORTANT that we recognize three things:

1. Conservative principles in general have proven themselves to serve society best.

2. Most of the principles of the Left have been shown again and again to be inimical to society's best interests.

3. The best way to further conservative principles (and hence to better society) is to maintain as much unity as possible on our side of the aisle.

As modern conservatives, we support the "big tent" principle: Electoral and ideological successes are determined by winning, and winning requires having as many people as possible on your side. Having some internal differences is only natural. In fact, it is quite healthy; one need only look at the ideological stultification on the left to see the end results of having no internal debate. However, at the end of the day, we conservatives all have the same agenda---to make America better, and to prevent the Left from making it worse. ModernConservative seeks to make the tent as big as possible without sacrificing the fundamental principles that make us conservatives. We won't agree all the time, but we all share the same overall goals!

Okay---with that said, let's have at it!

--A conservative strongly favors capitalism and traditional morality, and tends to prefer limited government. The term describes both the largest subgroup of the movement and also, generally, the movement itself.

--Like any conservative, a neoconservative, or neocon, favors capitalism and traditional morality. However, while not preferring anything close to "big government," a neocon is somewhat more likely to accept the use of government policies to serve certain social or economic ends. A neocon also tends to favor a vigorous U.S. foreign policy.

--A paleoconservative, or paleocon, is far more likely prefer a more isolationist U.S.---one that is far less involved in foreign affairs. Most paleocons also tend to prefer a policy of "economic nationalism," in which government imposes high tariffs and other protectionist measures. Paleocons have sometimes been described as favoring "Fortress America"-type policies.

Over time, however, some problems have arisen with these labels...

--Much of the standard paleoconservative ideology has been waning in influence in recent years. One of the more salient difficulties is that in a post-September 11th world, the isolationist tendencies of paleocons are decidedly problematic. (Besides, the Democrats---so often on the wrong side of history---are now themselves adopting an increasingly isolationist stance.) Moreover, on the very extreme end of paleoconservatism, one finds increased tendencies towards anti-Semitism and xenophobia. These tendencies, while not shared by the vast majority of conservatives, have provided ammunition to media and academic elites who wish to perpetuate certain stereotypes about conservatives in general.
Clearly, this term is inadequate to describe the majority of today's conservatives.

--Neoconservative ideologies have had an increased influence over the general direction of the conservative movement in recent years; political pragmatism and inclinations towards a strong U.S. foreign policy have been quite effective platforms of late. However, in many circles, the word "neocon" is now used primarily as a slur. An ugly confluence of anti-Semites, Democrats, and conspiracy theorists tend to use the term to describe individuals and officials they consider to be solely concerned with "doing the bidding" of the state of Israel. Furthermore, the term neoconservative was originally coined to describe democrats who---having been "mugged by reality"---became Republicans.
Clearly, this term is also inadequate to describe the majority of today's conservatives.

--Even the general term "conservative," after decades of hammering by a mostly hostile media elite, has become somewhat muddled and misunderstood. President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" was a good attempt to improve public recognition of the inherently compassionate nature of conservative principles, but it was more of a phrase than a label.

Political definitions and contexts change over time, and once they have changed sufficiently, older terminology can become obsolete, inadequate, or inappropriate. (In addition to the examples listed above, think about how increasingly illiberal the ideology of many so-called "liberals" has become.)

As these older terms become less useful or clear, it seems that a new term is required to describe the modern, center-right conservatives of today.

And where exactly do we find ourselves today?

We're in a war on terror---a war we have to win.
We know the role America must play, both in our own defense, and in the defense of liberty and goodness worldwide.

We're also in a battle here at home. The divide between left and right hasn't been deeper since Reconstruction, and many on the left now appear to be placing their desire for political power over the best interests of the country.

We've learned the lessons of history...
We've seen the proof that conservative economic and social principles work best.
We know that the greatest progress is made when America determines her own policies, rather than deferring to the whims of Europe and the United Nations.
And we've watched as most of the principles of the left have shown themselves to be decidedly unhelpful in pursuing society's best interests.

Today's modern conservative is informed, disciplined, and pragmatic.

Today's modern conservative is very much in line with the mainstream of America. (Hence our control of the Executive Branch, both houses of Congress, the majority of state legislatures and governorships, and now, the Supreme Court.)

Today's modern conservative is ideologically committed to a set of conservative principles that he/she believes will serve the best interests of society.

ModernConservative.com is a voice of the center-right---YOUR voice.

So, we ask you again---are you a Modcon?

Related discussion:

Jonah Goldberg's article What Is a "Conservative"? (We're comfortable with contradiction) provides a detailed look into this complex question. In his conclusory paragraphs, he says, "Any ideology that promises that if it were fully realized there would be no more problems, no more trade-offs, no more elites, and no more inequality of one kind or another is un-conservative." We think that accurately describes the sensible maturity and realism inherent in conservatism. Recognition of the inherent inequality and imperfection of life is a fundamental and defining characteristic of conservatism. And, though it wasn't his larger point, we believe this explains why the Republican party is the party of the Big Tent. Recognition of the imperfections of life leads to more nuance and variation in the different brands of conservatism developed to approach policy creation...whereas the left is perfectly able to march lock-step, because to them, an overarching system that can solve all problems IS a possibility.

So, when considering the meaning of the term "modcon," we see that as a political label, it can be applied to a variety of conservatives of different ideological stripes. You do not have to be an adherent of one specific ideology to be described as a "modern conservative."

Besides, Goldberg uses the phrase "eschatological kewpie doll," and that's just cool.

Mission Statement

Why do we divide into political parties in America? What are we trying to accomplish? As conservatives, what is our mission?

When you boil it all down, we conservatives want two things. We want to persuade others that our ideology is best, and we want to win! Simply put, we want what is best for America, and we believe that thst is best achieved by running the country according to the principles that make up our ideology.

At ModernConservative, the conservative mission is OUR mission.

The ModernConservative Statement of Purpose:

To propagate the conservative message, counter the propaganda of the Left, and maximize the effectiveness of grassroots conservative activism by...

• --providing concentrated access to information and resources in one user-friendly environment,
• --facilitating cooperation among individuals and organizations with similar goals, and
• --spotlighting the activities of individuals and organizations committed to effecting political and social change.

Using an inspiringly clean organizational system, ModernConservative.com provides a nexus where individual citizens can make a difference!

Three short messages to all modern conservatives (modcons, for short):

Our side

We all want to propagate the conservative message, but we don't always agree on every last aspect of that message...and that's okay. Having some internal differences is only natural (and healthy, in fact, because we strengthen our views through intelligent debate). But remember, at the end of the day, we all have the same agenda---to make America better, and to prevent the Left from making it worse. Electoral victory requires pragmatism, discipline...and a big tent!

Their side

It is important to remember that we are opposed to the ideology of the Left, not to liberals as people. With much of the political leadership on the Left behaving in increasingly hostile and irresponsible ways, and with the political divide in the country ever-deepening, politics can sometimes become personal. It must always be kept in mind that though we may disagree with some of their beliefs, most rank-and-file democrats are decent Americans motivated by a desire to do good. They are our family members, friends, and fellow Americans, and it is important that we show them respect and kindness.

America's side!

Much of political discourse is becoming increasingly shrill and reckless, a trend in which we ought not participate. As a voice of the center-right, ModernConservative seeks to be a source of reliable information and responsible discourse. American representative democracy is the greatest political system ever devised, but it can be fragile. Recently, it has begun to appear that some on the Left have placed their own desire for power over the best interests of the country. As conservatives, we must be better than that. As we quest to win hearts, minds, and elections, our first question should not be: what is best for us? Rather, it should always be: what is best for America?

...and if those two things happen to coincide, so much the better!

In politics, success is achieved when the nation is governed by people who apply the principles you value.

This is achieved through electoral victory.

Electoral victory is achieved when more people vote for your guy than vote for the other guy.

Sounds obvious, right? But it's that last one that presents all the problems. How do you get more people to vote for the person who will apply the principles in which you believe? A buzzword answer might be something like, "by winning the 'war of ideas.'"

That phrase does sounds quite powerful. But is this a war? Radio host Michael Medved* once offered---when talking about this issue---that in war, the goal is to "kill the other guy and break his stuff." Is that what we are trying to do in this "war of ideas"? Medved didn't think so, and I would have to agree. Whether we are talking to our friends on the other side of the aisle or to so-called "swing voters," it is not our goal to destroy them in an argument, but rather to persuade them of the rightness of our positions.

There are a number of requirements in such an approach. The first is being well-informed, and the second is keeping one's cool. I am proud to notice that when it comes to being informed, as a very general rule, conservatives seem to have more hard facts at their disposal---and are less likely to resort to spouting sound bites---than our liberal friends. It is even said---and I think it is true---that people on the right side of the aisle tend to arrive at their conclusions using thought, and people on the left tend to arrive at their conclusions from a more emotional starting point. However, there is a difference between using emotions to develop one's beliefs and the use of emotions when expressing those beliefs. In the latter arena, conservatives have no monopoly on staying calm. Sure, I think it can be fairly argued that our pundits and politicians have more restraint and emotional control than many on the other side...but it's not a monopoly by any means.

Unfortunately, when you add the natural tendency that many of us have to become passionate about our beliefs to the fact that political discourse in this country has gotten nastier than it's been since Reconstruction, it can be somewhat hard to keep one's cool when discussing politics these days. I am certainly not immune myself---I have allowed many discussions to escalate into arguments, and I have been guilty on enough occasions of being the prime mover in that escalation. In my own life, I have noticed that on many occasions, I was not the one who started the discussion, but when the gauntlet was dropped in front of me, I would pick it up and beat the other person senseless with it.

In fact, I'm rather good at that. If I know a subject well, I can dispense facts and numbers---and my conclusions about them both---with more force and speed than a firehose dispenses water. I can use the art of "ball control," talking a lot, talking fast, and maintaining control of most of the discussion. None of this is because I am a mean person---in fact, I'd like to hope that I am reasonably nice. It's because I am passionate and convinced of the rightness, even the righteousness, of my beliefs. It is because something in me thinks that if I can just make my "opponent" see the things that seem so clear to me, and do so as fast and with as much factual support as possible, surely he or she MUST come around to my way of thinking. It really is an impressive thing to watch......and it doesn't work. In fact, very often, it has the opposite effect. In an effort to respond to the passionate way I am expressing my convictions, my opponent becomes equally passionate in defense of his. We both walk away with our own positions reinforced, and for my part at least, I also walk away feeling a little sad and dirty. And I did not convince anyone of anything.

And of course, that should be my goal---OUR goal. To convince. To persuade. But with all this polarization, with our passion, and with the fact that for the most part, we are right and they are wrong...how do we do it? How do we keep calm?

The first key is to resist the tendency to be affected by the polarization---specifically, to resist reducing the people whom you are trying to convince to the status of "opponents." I once saw a local Republican activist refer to the Democratic Party as the "Demonrat Party." Now, I will grant that after listening to ten minutes of Senator Edward Kennedy spewing vitriol and lies on the floor of the United States Senate, I often begin to imagine large, demonic rats myself. But there is a big difference between the Ted Kennedys of the world and the average rank-and-file Democrat, liberal, or even left-winger. I think talk show host and author Hugh Hewitt put it very well by identifying the differences between those who are "rotten" and those who are just "wrong." We all know that the left-of-center political ideology has been wrong on most of the major questions of history, especially and increasingly over the last 40 years. But there is a huge difference between being wrong about many of one's intellectual positions and being a rotten person. Of course, there are some genuinely rotten people out there in the world, displaying varying degrees of rottenness, but they are pretty few and far between. (We could also begin a discussion here about the redeemability of even the most rotten among us, but that would take us into a theological and philosophical discussion best left for another time.)

Look at the people around you, at the people in your life. The odds are very good that you are intimately familiar or even involved is some close way with some Democrats and/or liberals. (If you live in rural Utah, the odds are less likely, of course, but even there...) They may be friends, co-workers, or family members. It may be someone close to you---a best friend or a spouse, for example. Now think about those people. Ignoring for the time being their wrong ideas, just think about them as people. Are they demon rats? Do they resemble, in any way, rodents or servants of the dark one? Chances are, the answer is a resounding "no." Chances are, they are wonderful, caring, hard-working people who pay their taxes and love their children. They do not wake up in the morning contemplating how they can spread evil throughout the world. They want to do good things; they want to see the human condition improved. They may have a bunch of really lame ideas about how to make all that happen, but their motivations almost always come from a good place.

Here's a personal example. With just a small number of exceptions, all of my family are to the left side of the political spectrum. In the case of my parents, they are actually quite far to the left. (They may not see it as so, but I think that is because of a fundamental misperception of where the center of the political spectrum actually lies.) When it comes to politics and political ideas, most of their impulses are just plain wrong (at least the ones I know about, for we have by-and-large stopped discussing politics). But they are wonderful people. I mean seriously---they are caring, concerned, FANTASTIC people. My dad is brilliant, hard-working, generous---a MAN in all the best meanings of the word. My mom is talented, genuine, and so incredibly loving. They are absolutely delightful people---they are fun to be around and absolutely terrific to have as parents.

And, to my personal shame, I have turned the firehouse in their direction on more than one occasion.

I convinced no one. I walked away feeling sad and dirty. And this scene has been repeated with other people---other family, friends, strangers. Needless to say, I am not holding the other parties entirely blameless in all of this. I have encountered plenty of people whose default inclination for political discussions is quite similar. Certain many people I have known have had a tendency to fire shots across my bow---to see what will happen, to test the waters, to bait... Okay, that's a bunch of metaphors, but the smaller point is that it usually takes two to tango. And the larger point is...so what? This isn't about blame, it's about what works...and also a little about what is spiritually healthy. Our rank-and-file political opponents aren't monsters. They are our friends, family, and neighbors. They are our fellow Americans and our fellow human beings. Bashing people over the head with the cudgel of ideas is unpleasant, and it doesn't work particularly well.

So, what DOES work?

*I think it may have been Rush Limbaugh who originally said this.