I don’t know what it means to “be part of the process.” In my mind it means voting, keeping up with the news and occasionally sending money to an agreeable politician.

If it means voting a straight party ticket, listening to Rush Limbaugh every day and sending donations to neoconservative think tanks, that’s something else.

I would think that “principles and loyalties” meant working within the system to preserve The Permanent Things, to the best possible extent.

“Being part of the process” basically means tailoring what you do and say to what will be successful or at least acceptable. It’s right to do that to some degree, of course, but when do you stop? Does conservatism in the end relate to some non-negotiable set of principles, so that a “conservative” could conceivably find himself a radical or revolutionary depending on the setting, or is it more a matter of moderating politics, of making it less ideological and more willing to accommodate itself to actual feelings and habits?

Examples would be the family and disputes over the place of religion in public life. Should conservatives accommodate themselves to change and accept current views of sex, gender and the family, or stand fast? Should they try to put religion back in the public square or accept that the liberals have won on that one and move forward?

Would you agree that, in general, National Review, Weekly Standard, and a majority of the other nominally conservative publications have decided to “remain part of the process”? If so, other than by means of the Internet, do any institutions or organs of opinion speak for American traditionalist conservatives?

WW

I agree that conservative institutions, publications, journalists etc. are overly inclined to accommodate whatever principles they have or once had for the sake of remaining part of the process, and that it’s sometimes hard to distinguish that from accommodation for the sake of personal advantage - career, respectability,etc.

Most conservative publications and many conservative writers sometimes say good things but it seems they lack consistency and staying power. Gertrude Himmelfarb for example has said some very useful things about the demoralization of society etc. but then when First Things said it was conceivable that at some point loyalty to the good might trump loyalty to actual social authorities in America she resigned in protest.

As for true-blue publications and institutions that define traditionalist conservatism reliably and stick to it I can’t think of any. But then maybe I’m too picky because I have too many theories of my own on the subject!

But if conservatives do not participate to a certain extent it can be very hard to pass the core values on to the next generation(s). Although the mainstream conservatives are more liberal than many of us would like great strides have been made slowly moving the politics of the US to the “right”. Some Democrats, for example, have pushed the idea, perhaps simply a flirtation, that Senator John McCain should switch to their party and run in the 2004 Presidential election as a “moderate Democrat”.
The 41st President was outflanked on the right, as you all know, by Pat Buchanan and it was the populist-right Ross Perot handed the election to Clinton. That does not mean the traditionalists should compromise principle to win but help to gently push the public in the right direction.

Line drawing is difficult, and people can make different contributions. Still, the problem on the right these days doesn’t strike me as over-much intransigence. You should know what it is you’re compromising before you decide how much to give. Also, there are people who not only veer to the left but also attack their right.