As a Republican, I am constantly thinking about the ways in which the Grand Ol’ Party (GOP) is either attracting or alienating voters.  One of the major issues in the party right now is a battle of orthodoxies.  It is in vogue to be considered a “conservative”, yet there is no good definition of conservative.  As such, a “conservative” Christian may nearly come to blows with a “conservative” libertarian, and both of them might butt heads with a “conservative” security hawk.  The term has become a buzzword, a null, an empty vessel to be filled with platitudes.

I like to go back to the dictionary whenever I start defining something.  The word “conserve” comes from the Latin, meaning “to keep together”.  Really?  How is it then that “conservatives” so divide the electorate?  How is it that “conservatives” are so divided amongst themselves?  Because most of them are not actually conservatives- the are “preservatives”.

Let’s look at the roots of the word “preserve”.  Also from the Latin, it means “to keep as before”.  This is a critical difference in that a preservative is something which maintains a pre-existing state, just like the butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) that keeps your potato chips tasting fresh.  And, just like chemical preservatives in food, it seems that political preservatives in government may cause cancer.

History, and human societies, are funny things.  Historical context is an important guide, and those who eschew it face their own trials with crippling ignorance.  That said, those who treat history as simply repetitive are likely to get pummeled.  While themes and ideas often come in cycles, events almost never repeat themselves in exactly the same way.  A great example of this is the use of horse cavalry in World War I.  Cavalry was potentially useful in breaking the entrenched stalemate, but it had to be armored cavalry (tanks) and those came too little too late.

We see this kind of thinking time and again from our elected leaders and even from the electorate.  We see preservatives in both major parties, people who cling to some idealized past state as if it could be maintained indefinitely.

Preservative Republicans tend to harken back to some idyllic age of American ascendency- say the 1950s.  They balk at the thought of gay marriage, or taxing the rich, or letting military women into “combat” roles.  In their world, everyone goes to church on Sunday, followed by a Sunday dinner around the table.  Dad goes to work and comes home and smokes a pipe and reads the paper.  Mom stays home, does the housework, and raises the kids.  While the details vary between individual preservative Republicans, the gist is the same- return to an idealized past state in which the “traditional” patriarchal, white, nuclear family was the basis of all that is good.

Preservative Democrats instead seem to defending a state of ultimate neutrality in which there are no winners and losers, no environmental costs, and no loss.  They rail against changing the retirement age for Social Security, or drilling for oil in ANWR, or limiting the power of public employee unions.  In their world, entrepreneurs serve the workers, forests are never cut down, wells never drilled, and everyone does things out of a sense of social responsibility- never for selfish reasons.  Again, the details change wildly amongst individual preservative Democrats, but the goals are similar- return to a hypothetical past state in which matriarchal peoples-of-color lived in harmony with the land and each other.

The fact is that both sets of goals are patently silly on the face of them.  While more Republicans will openly confess to consciously believing in the former vision, a surprising number of Democrats will subconsciously speak as if they support the latter ideal.  The reality is that neither of them ever really existed, certainly not with the idyllic universality that their proponents might like to think.

Human history and human societies are messy- because human behavior is messy.  We are imperfect beings with an imperfect understanding of our environment and ourselves.  Those limitations prevent us from ever achieving perfection.  A true conservative knows this- but a preservative denies it.  The preservative instead blames the moral failings of their enemies (those who deny their vision) for our society’s inability to achieve their brand of perfection.

Think I’m wrong?  Listen to the invective flying about Washington these days.  Republican preservatives call those who oppose them lazy, perverted, and childish.  Democratic preservatives label their opponents as greedy, selfish, and ignorant.  These are not arguments against policies, but rather against persons- ad hominem attacks designed to belittle the moral fiber of those who do not share their delusions.

It is the responsibility of the conservative to instead unite- to literally “keep together”, for this is the very definition of conservative.  Conservatives are tasked with defending values, yes; but, these must be shared values that can translate across time periods.  A modern Christian conservative never attempts to make American law follow Leviticus.  Those preservatives who would perpetuate the cultural mores of a bronze age Levantine people do so at the cost of denying the commands of the very God they claim to serve.  It falls instead to the truly conservative Christian to promote a world in which those who would live as Jesus taught can do so without persecution- nothing more, nothing less.  To do so, the conservative Christian keeps separate Church and State, knowing that unifying the two corrupts both.

Similarly, it is the charge of the conservative to identify the core “goodness” behind things and ideas of value- it is these that must be defended, not the forms and institutions.  For instance, conservatives stand in defense of the values behind our Constitution, holding to the letter when possible but ready to amend if necessary to keep our nation united, free, prosperous, and safe.  After all, the Framers outlined in the Preamble the causes, the values behind our Constitution.  It is these that they sought to conserve.

Above all, the path of the conservative is a path of compromise- not of the core “goodnesses” they defend, but of the trappings of the past.  Conservatives do not simply deny the worker because the businessman owns the company- instead conservatives must thoroughly analyze each situation based on its merits and in keeping with the greater truths they safeguard.  A real conservative never permits a “knee-jerk” reaction to guide public policy.

At one time, to be a conservative required intellectual rigor and the strength of character to turn against traditions that had become deleterious.  It is time that we do so again.  Let Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and their ilk wear the mantle of preservative for as long as they care to.  Henceforth we must only allow those who demonstrate careful reflection, wisdom, and a broad knowledge of human reality to bear the title of conservative.