Conservative movement faces challenges (AJC)

In his recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Convention, Rush Limbaugh referred repeatedly to "the conservative movement."

It's an accurate phrase. In 21st century America, the conservatives function as a movement while the liberals function as a party. The distinction is telling.

Roughly defined, a party is a collection of groups motivated by different goals but loosely committed to working together. A movement, by contrast, is motivated by an ideology, a central goal or collection of goals to which its members pledge loyalty.

"Conservatism is what it is and it is forever'" as Limbaugh put it. "It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form."

Now, party and movement each has its advantages. A movement, by definition, offers a passion, energy and direction that are useful in politics. It inspires loyalty and discipline from its members, and deviation is frowned upon.

A party, on the other hand, lacks a powerful internal energy and cohesion. At times, that lack of defining cause can leave it wandering through the political landscape. At other times, that amorphous nature makes a party more adaptable to change and more open to experimentation.

Today, conservatism's self-identity as a movement presents it with two challenges, one large but probably temporary; the other existential.

As we saw over the last eight years, a movement tends to lose discipline and sense of mission once it achieves power. It becomes what it was trying to change, a phenomenon that has repeated time and again. It happened to Republicans, it happened in the French Revolution, it happens always.

The process is captured perfectly in a scene from George Orwell's "Animal Farm." The animals, motivated by a core set of principles such as "four legs good, two legs bad," have driven off their human bosses. Victory is theirs; their movement has succeeded.

Then one day, the animals peer through the farmhouse window and are shocked to see their leaders, the pigs, walking about on two legs and acting just like the enemy they had ousted.

Today, the rank and file of the conservative movement feels similarly betrayed, for good reason. And now that they have been banished from the luxuries of the farmhouse, their leaders are back among them, trying to walk on four legs again and regain credibility.

That's what the unanimous House GOP vote against the stimulus package was all about -- it was a gesture of contrition and renewed submission by leadership to movement ideology. And given time, that will likely succeed in repairing the rift.

The second problem is more difficult. Movements are not eternal. They have an organic lifespan. They rise out of a particular time and place, they make their impact, and then one of two things happens. Either they find within themselves the ability to change with changing times, or they wither.

That's the challenge facing the conservative movement. Times have changed dramatically. Economically, politically, socially, demographically, today's America is very different from the America that gave birth to the conservative movement. The Cold War is over and forgotten; the '60s are over and forgotten. The baby boomers are beginning to pass from the stage, as evidenced by our first post-boom president.

Those conservatives who understand that are trying to find new applications and meaning in their core principles, but that reinvention is difficult and takes time. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for example, told the CPAC convention that while it is important to "honor and respect and remember Ronald Reagan," it's also time to move on.

"We need to develop new Ronald Reagans and new reference points," Pawlenty told a Bloomberg reporter. "It would be as if Barack Obama was going around and constantly talking about Truman or LBJ. It's just become a reference point that isn't as relevant for young people."

But I doubt the conservative movement has the flexibility to accept that message in all its complex meanings. As Limbaugh told CPAC, "The era of Reagan is over? When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over? .... Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart."

And if Limbaugh says it, it must be true.