In thinking about how to succeed, it’s crucial to remember that splitting forces isn’t the way to go, especially with the midterm elections approaching.
Movements often flourish through internal conflicts, sharpening ideas as they clash, but ultimately, they need to reunite. If they don’t, we could end up with a situation reminiscent of 1992, when George H.W. Bush broke his promise and caused a rift within the movement, enabling a transformed liberal to take the presidency.
Lessons from then are vital for today. To avoid repeating those mistakes, a nuanced level of thinking is needed, something which many leaders and supporters on the conservative side might still be struggling with. There’s still a window to shift gears, but that window is narrowing.
From the start, conservatives acknowledged that Donald Trump’s presidency would be more transactional than ideological—making choices based on immediate needs rather than the long-held “first principles” from the Reagan era.
This pragmatic distance has become tricky, with some, remarkably, shifting traditional conservative views on trade and core values once firmly upheld by Reagan and Bush. The implications have spread throughout various organizations, where groups once focused on economic growth and strong national defense are increasingly viewed as ideological outliers.
While there’s some merit to labeling these shifts, political movements that don’t evolve can stagnate. The political landscape is shifting, and to remain effective, alliances need to adapt. Just look at Britain’s Conservative Party—clearly, stagnation is not a path to success. And when was the last time anyone came across a Whig or a Federalist?
This internal strife among conservatives not only distracts from essential issues but also risks handing power to the left by default. Engaging in internal conflicts diverts attention from real adversaries of free markets which leads to destructive outcomes. To achieve anything of substance during Trump’s remaining time, it’s imperative to avoid tiring battles against one another. A divided front is unlikely to win elections or effect meaningful change.
This issue isn’t solely due to Trump’s approach; it traces back years, as pointed out by outlets like the New York Times, when influential conservative thinkers attempted to unify factions into a cohesive force that would act in unison on nearly every front.
To secure victories, unity on key issues is critical. While a diversity of opinions adds strength, allowing dissension to deteriorate into institutional collapse is a grave mistake—one illustrated by recent unfounded allegations against the Heritage Foundation by some ambitious activists.
The Heritage Foundation’s legacy matters. Founded by Dr. Edwin Feulner and Dr. Paul Weyrich, it has become a cornerstone for ideas like pro-growth taxation and respect for the Constitution, reinvigorating these concepts within American political thought.
This does not mean that Heritage should be immune to scrutiny. It’s perfectly reasonable to debate its policies and direction. Healthy criticism is constructive. However, there’s a stark difference between critique and dismantling valuable institutions.
Dissatisfaction doesn’t warrant destruction. Conservatives must prioritize winning and nurturing a solid majority rather than impeding progress through infighting.
The Heritage Foundation transcends any singular controversy, leader, or clique. It should be supported across all factions—including those loyal to Reagan, Bush, and Trump—to ensure its relevance in the future. If this foundational element crumbles, the left will rejoice.
Those on the conservative side ought to consider the ramifications of letting such institutions weaken. One day, they might find themselves looking back at a landscape devoid of guidance.
