Ah, the young

This young conservative comments on the future of the movement.

This paragraph gets at my fears in a nutshell:

Then, there is the other allegation that the Republican Party must be re-invented. This thought is both false and true. The core values of the Republican Party remain as intact as when John C. Fremont became the first Republican candidate for President in 1856. He ran on basic values of freedom and democracy. Later Republicans from Lincoln onward believed in a pro-business and pro-freedom agenda. They also believed that if freedom was threatened, America [sic] should not be afraid to defend that freedom with their lives. Those are the core values of the Republican Party, and they should remain the Republican values.

First of all, this young man obviously lacks a good deal of historical perspective.  The Republican Party was not built on "basic values of freedom and democracy."  Ever heard of "Reconstruction"?  Ever heard of the mass disenfranchisement of the South that followed the War Between the States?  (Check out this file on lewrockwell.com for plenty of interesting and well-researched information about the period) 

This young author also makes a point about the Republicans being "pro-business."  That's another part of the problem.  There is a huge difference between being pro-capitalism and being pro-business.  Few are the former.  Current Republicans are the latter, which is why the Ameircan Left can justifiably attack them for cozying up to big business (not that the Democrats are any better, cozy as they are with unions and the like).  I'm anxiously waiting for someone to meticulously treat this topic, as it's an important one.

Anyway, the underlying mistake in the esssay is that the writer equates Republicanism and conservatism.  Nonsense!  That's precisely the sort of thinking that will kill conservatism, and all the goods its seeks to defend.

So what is conservatism, and what should the young people who claim that title be fighting for?  A complex question, no doubt, and better minds and tongues than mine should make an attempt to answer it.  But I'll venture a guess.

Conservatism is, above all, a heroic way of life.  It is a political philosophy that is in many ways a-political.  Conservatives respect family, tradition, religion, and culture.  They love liberty and the free market, but are wise enough to know that both are merely instrumental goods that allow for the cultivation of a civilization that produces remarkable people. 

Of course, this is a horrible definition, because conservatism quite simply is not an ideology; it's a way of life.  I've tried to give a one line answer to this question a few times before, and both failed.  More accurately, I'd say you can understand conservatism if you appreciate literature (and, as you will shortly see, I'm using a very expansive definition of the word, one that relates to the literary life; one quite worth living, I might add).  Read The Lord of the Rings.  Read (or, if you're lucky enough, listen to a parent or grandparent relate) the myths of your people.  Learn about the history of your family, and the legends that have developed around some of your relations (I know a few about my father and grandfather, for instance).  Read about the amazing people who battled evil and won (like Saint's live, truly inspiring).  When you understand the simple beauty of human existence, made worthwhile by love and fragile by the countless times that love is challenged by the Enemy's malice, then you'll be that much closer to understanding conservatism.

And, more importantly, living it.  That will be the movement's true salvation.