Symposium: Rubber, Meet Road

This article is in response to Go Radical or Go Home and is part of the symposium on “Conservatism: What’s Wrong with It and How Do We Make It Right?”

There is a lot of not-unjustified garment rending in George Neumayr’s “Go Radical or Go Home,” and, like the prophets of old, Mr. Neumayr seems more than willing to call plagues upon the houses of wayward conservatives, if it means they will turn from their liberal ways and resume the righteous path. But by the end of his article, I am left wondering if Mr. Neumayr is a Calvinist, because I have the impression that every conservative he espies is nearly totally depraved.

Now, whether or not that is true of Mr. Neumayr I don’t know. But his evident dissatisfaction brings to mind the crucial distinction between theory and practice, a distinction foreign to liberals, for whom the theory is: Do whatever works. It’s conservatives who face the perpetual tension between rubber and road.

Mr. Neumayr is fond of quoting Russell Kirk as his authority on all things conservative, and for that I can’t blame him—it does not get better than Kirk. Still, Russell Kirk never had to negotiate with Nancy Pelosi, nor did he have to contend with the 2008 “Obama for America” get-out-the-vote machine. Conservatives face the perpetual difficulty of joining principle with power, and while conservatism would be worthless if it abandoned its principles, it is pointless if it has no power. I believe, with Mr. Neumayr, that conservatives should not capitulate to pressures to embrace the homosexual agenda. But “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was never a cause for which to fall on one’s sword.

Where theory and practice meet there are fault lines, and purists on both sides are unhappy. But most people realize that we do not have the luxury of being purists. The name of the game is compromise. Conservative politicians have to prioritize, and sacrificing lesser priorities to move the ball forward on more important ones can be justified.

Russell Kirk—and his hero, Edmund Burke—both understood this: the need for prudence. Politics is messy, and few gains are gotten without concomitant losses. The trick is deciding which losses matter least, which gains matter most, and where—if you have to—you’ll take your stand.