Who Is A Conservative?

"I've warned you that one of the things that concerns me most about all this is how conservatism is going to be redefined so as to fit whatever the current crop of candidates said it is."

Rush Limbaugh has not endorsed any Republican candidate for the Iowa Caucus, but he today issued, in effect, an anti-endorsement of Mike Huckabee and John McCain. The radio talker's attempt to read both men out of the conservative movement leaves one wondering whether there's anything left to be called a movement at this point.

Struggling to define the movement to his own satisfaction, Limbaugh appears to insist on a certain complete package of positions, and to exclude anyone who claims conservative credentials on a single-issue. McCain apparently can't claim to be conservative just because he supports the Iraq occupation. According to Limbaugh, he is not a conservative because he opposes the torture and indefinite confinement of suspected terrorists, has voted against some tax cuts, has supported "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants, and authored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.

Huckabee, in turn, is denounced as a single-issue pseudo-conservative who is actually guilty of practicing "identity politics." By that Limbaugh means that the Arkansan has allegedly positioned himself as the "Christian Leader" and rightful candidate of anyone who loathes abortion. This isn't enough for Rush. The following comes from the official transcript of today's program:

There are some people who will overlook every aspect of Governor Huckabee that is really something in total opposition to most of their beliefs, because all they will see is the Christian characteristic, particularly if it fits right with the abortion issue. Now, my friends, I'm sorry here. I haven't spent a lifetime, and particularly the last 23 years on radio, advocating conservative principles only to throw them away to embrace some candidate. I don't support open borders and amnesty, as does Governor Huckabee. I don't support the release of hundreds of criminals. I don't support repeated increases in taxes. I don't support national health care. I don't care what you call it, whether it's in the name of the children or not. I don't support anti-war rhetoric that sounds as if it was written by Nancy Pelosi. And yet I'm being asked to put all that aside in the midst of a Republican primary.

Limbaugh fails or refuses to acknowledge that Huckabee reaffirmed his support for both the occupation and the surge during his Meet the Press interview. Like many reactionaries, Limbaugh feels a vicarious insult whenever he recalls Huckabee's infamous remark about the president's "arrogant bunker mentality." In practice, Huckabee's position on the war could not be further from Speaker Pelosi's, but mere agreement with the president doesn't suffice. He must positively demonstrate his loyalty to the leader with words of praise. Regrettably, Huckabee himself has knuckled under a little, performing a little last-minute boot-licking today. But it is probably too late for him. Republicans are slow to forgive. Like Limbaugh, they haven't forgiven McCain for the 2000 primaries. Huckabee has said too much against Bush (and against the rich, to an extent) to be fully trusted again.

But what right does Rush Limbaugh have to say Mike Huckabee isn't a conservative? Has Huckabee no less right to question Limbaugh's credentials? Limbaugh has offered a litmus test that may be no more than his own personal principles or preferences. What makes them definitively conservative apart from his own advocacy of them? He's certainly right to say that no one issue is make-or-break, but where is the line drawn, and why?

Limbaugh, Huckabee, and the whole lot will have to face the fact that 21st century American conservatism is not a coherent ideology. Like the Republican party itself, the conservative movement is increasingly strained by the contradictions churning within the would-be big tent. Limbaugh looks to Ronald Reagan as his guiding star, while others look farther back in time, and others yet belie any conservative pretensions in their fealty to the creatively destructive power of laissez-faire capitalism. A case can be made for a certain philosophically consistent conservative habit of mind that would be the same if you lived in America or ancient Greece, but any given conservative political movement is inevitably influenced by the circumstances of its birth to conserve the peculiarities of its own culture, whether that culture can be considered conservative in philosophical terms or not.

In simpler terms, we may have come to a moment where conservatives must debate amongst themselves exactly what they want to conserve in the immediate future. Some will opt to save their purportedly Christian culture. Some will run to the rescue of supply-side economics. Others will concentrate their fire on foreign enemies. Confusion will reign. The Republican party may well continue, persistent beast that it is, but the conservative movement that has controlled it since the 1980s may soon come to an end. Under the American Bipolarchy, that may be the best we can hope for. The prospect clearly alarms Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't understand why we cant have 1980 or 1994 all over again. Whether that should alarm Mike Huckabee or anyone else is another matter.