Conservatives gather "to formulate a grand path forward for the American right'
Conference attendees use apocalyptic language and metaphor to create a template for future action
The pronouncements of elected officials, the policies they propose, and the decisions they make are the public face of governance.
Certainly they influence the course of events.
But there is another presence, operating behind-the-scenes, just-off-stage—found in think tanks or ideologically-oriented organizations—that is an important part of the process. They might be supportive of a public official, but more often their priority is a cause, be it a political agenda, social philosophy, or cultural outlook.
Understanding how the game works, they align their interests with one of the two major political parties—or a wing of it—yet their involvement is not necessarily as a follower. More often than not, the goal is to have the party—its elected officials, the candidates running for office, and the foot soldiers--embrace their agenda, philosophy, or outlook. They are usually labeled conservative or liberal, but vary along that long spectrum.
Like Henry Higgins, they seek to create a ‘fair lady’ that reflects their world view.
There are all sorts of ways to make this happen: Position papers, opinion pieces, television and radio interviews, direct mail, and social media are few that come to mind. Another is providing lawmakers with model legislation, along with talking points. Financial support is, of course, the life blood of politics and has its sway.
Still another means is holding a conference where like-minded folks come together to hear speeches, hold seminars and reinforce each other. They serve as gatherings where notes are compared, ideas are presented, strategies are pushed, the groundwork is laid, and (perhaps most important) shared camaraderie is established.
Unlike a political party convention, these conferences are usually not ‘big tents’ that invite a myriad of opinions. Nor are they a place where diverse views are welcome. The speakers are generally “preaching to the choir.”
All of this might not seem important, except the gatherings (and the groups that sponsor them) have an impact. They influence elected officials as well as the party and its supporters by providing them with a template for future action.
* * *
It is this potential for being a template, a harbinger for what might lie ahead, that prompted my concern when I read about the recent three-day National Conservatism Conference in Miami.
NBC News political reporter Allan Smith wrote about an assemblage of conservative politicians, influencers, well-heeled donors, and academics gathered “to formulate a grand path forward for the American right.”
And they apparently used apocalyptic language and metaphor to make their case.
“Repeatedly, speakers here framed the on-going fight against the American left in biblical terms — a ‘religious battle’ in which Republicans must be unafraid to use state power to thwart progressive goals not just in government, but the private sphere, too,” Smith wrote, adding that “Those at the gathering often argued both the culture wars and a changing economy are a battle of Christian ideals vs. a new age secularism.”
Many of the attendees are in the vanguard of what both proponents and detractors are calling Christian Nationalism. To some that term is defined as a theocracy with American government and culture adhering to Christian tenants, presumably ‘conservative’ ones, while others see it as America embracing its Christian heritage and basing law and custom on the preferences of that religious majority.
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, seemed to lean toward the former position when (as quoted by Smith) he stated that the divide in the country was one between Christian theology and a “woke religion that is raising itself up as the official state ideology,” adding that “insofar as conservatism as a movement has a future, it is a future that is going to be increasingly tied to explicit theological claims.”
Brad Littlejohn, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, told Smith that “the necessity of leaning explicitly into the Christian foundations of American political order” has become “more emphatic” with each passing conference.
“You have to recognize that it is a religious battle,” Littejohn said of the divide between left and right, adding, “Progressivism has taken on increasingly religious overtones.”
While acknowledging that there is a large percentage of Americans who don’t consider themselves particularly religious, Littlejohn said that they “are still going to have to grapple with the fact that their political order is being shaped by a religious conflict.”
“ We want to make the case that the America that they would rather live in is one in which the values and political norms that come from Christianity are on the ascendant, rather than those that are coming from the kind of radical woke left,” he further explained.
A document issued at the end of the conference stated that “Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private.” It did add that other religious minorities “are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children.”
The ‘separation of church and state’ would be done away under this plan, but freedom of religious practice protected—at least in theory. A sort of ‘separate but equal' doctrine.
The conference was hosted by The Edmund Burke Foundation, which Smith explained is a three-year-old conservative organization “aimed at promoting right-wing nationalism across the globe.” He noted that other right-aligned advocacy groups and donors lent their support as well.
Among the speakers were Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Mario Rubio and Rick Scott, both of Florida, along with tech mogul and megadonor Peter Thiel and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was introduced at the conference as the “future president of the United States.”
Senator Hawley, in his remarks, said, “Without the Bible, there is no modernity. Without the Bible, there is no America.” He criticized the view of gender as a “social construct” as well as arguments that the U.S. suffers from systemic racism. “And their real target in all of this, I submit to you, is the inheritance of the Bible. What they [the left] particularly dislike about America is our dependence on biblical teaching and tradition.”
The conference also spotlighted a likely shift away from the Republican Party’s championing of limited government and libertarianism, embracing instead the use of executive action to push forth desired policies. It’s a method currently being practiced by Gov. DeSantis who, amongst other actions, removed members of a county school board and a prosecutor—all of them elected—for opposing him, not to mention chartering a plane to transport asylum-seeking migrants from Texas, where they had reached the border, to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts with the rationale that they might end up in the Sunshine state.
Reflecting this sea change is the embrace by many conservatives of Hungary’s autocratic Prime Minister Viktor Orban who has trampled upon civil liberties and scapegoated minorities during his reign. To put a finer point to that growing support, representatives from Hungarian think tanks spoke on panels and handed out related literature during the conference.
Another shift that was highlighted during the gathering is Republicans taking on Big Business, long their allies, for what they see as the sin of supporting, ‘liberal’ social positions.
Gov. DeSantis, during his turn at the podium, argued that conservatives “need to curb their deference to the private sector.” He, of course, has already demonstrated his willingness to financially punish corporations that oppose his policies, the most famous one being Disney for criticizing his ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill.
* * *
I used the word ‘concern’ as my reaction in reading about this conference for these reasons.
Civil discourse, which I’ve long championed, along with civility in our political, social, and cultural interactions, seems a naive approach compared to this martial tone. Like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The give-and-take of representative government, the use of compromise to obtain consensus, would give way to a take-it-or-leave it form of government.
Diversity of opinions and lifestyles, any deviation from the accepted norm, would seem to find little tolerance in the attitudes (and potential) policies that are being put forth by the speakers.
Using a particular religious doctrine as ‘the measure of all things’ is a potential invitation for intolerance, discrimination, persecution, and even violence.
Framing differences in political views, social practices, and cultural outlooks as an epic battle of ‘good vs evil’ takes us from a nation of fellow citizens who ‘agree to disagree’ to one where we’re viewing each other with suspicion and animosity.
Of course, all of the above concerns, have happened in the past and to some degree are happening now—only it’s not official policy or, as yet, an acceptable means of governance. Nor, I hope, do they reflect a majority opinion.
In fairness, a similar martial tone and ‘us vs them’ attitude can be found on the left. The extremes, while seemingly diametrically opposed, are often alike in their language, attitudes, and practices, while those of us in the middle become collateral damage in their battle.
Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and editor-publisher of the ‘Fowlerville News & Views’.