Last week, Gallup polled Americans on their ideological affiliation, and the results weren’t necessarily surprising. Of those polled, 40 percent claimed conservatism, 36 percent branded themselves as moderate, and only 20 percent called themselves liberal (makes one wonder if Sam Tanenhaus will write a book pronouncing the death of liberalism.)

What’s more prevalent, however, is the shift in American thought on issues toward the conservative side.

According to Gallup, those that think there’s too much government regulation jumped up seven points since last year. Americans favoring a decrease in immigration has increased 11 points. Those calling themselves pro-life rose three points. Respondents believing that the global warming threat is exaggerated went up six points.

What this tells us is that conservatism, contrary to those proclaiming that it was delivered a death knell by the most recent election, is primed for a comeback.

But this begs the question: What is conservatism?

This has been the perennial question since conservatism coalesced into a national movement in the 1950s, for there has never been a prescribed definition of the word. National Review, the most popular conservative magazine of the last 50 years, started out as really a mixture of libertarians, traditional conservatives, and virulent anti-Communists, only anti-Communism being the glue that held this ever antagonistic group together.

The libertarians (those that still call themselves conservatives) would define it as a belief in free markets, sound money and little foreign interventionism. They have a generally positive view of man and believe left to their own devices, they can do much more good than when tied down by government bureaucracy.

The traditional conservatives define conservatism as, well, hard to define. It’s not an ideology, taught the great 20th century conservative philosopher Russell Kirk, and as such there are few prescribed notions that one must agree with in order to count as a conservative.
The anti-Communists are the most bellicose of the group. In the Cold War they favored an aggressive stance toward Russia, and now they favor the same posture towards “terrorism.”

Surveyors of the political scene have tried to lay the recent failure of conservatism at the feet of the former two groups. Incessant belief in the free market and social issues turned off independents and moderates from conservatism, they say. Fervent anti-illegal immigration views made the movement one of only WASPs, veering it down the path to disappearance with the changing demographic.

Does the aforementioned Gallup Poll not prove this idea wrong? Since the election of Barack Obama, conservatives have protested his economic Keynesianism and supposedly radical social views and look what has happened—independents have gotten more conservative, from 29 percent to 35 percent.

No, conservatism fell because of the messianic ideology of the latter group that permeated the Bush administration and mired us into two unnecessary and unwinnable wars. It relies on bombastic talk radio hosts who say ridiculous things to get ratings to be the intellectual force behind the movement. Conservatism fell because it strayed from conservatism.

Why is this the one position that is never examined?

Conservatism is a winning issue, as upcoming elections will most likely show. But the conservatism that should be campaigned is not the Bush-ism that ran its party, its philosophy, and its country into the ground.