Sure, conservatism was intellectually more interesting and satisfying in the days when the movement was young, but moving from ideas in a book to candidates on ballots is no easy transition.

This is especially true when your movement is as diverse as American conservatism. The early movement included agrarians, libertarians, traditionalists, and, most influentially, ex-communists.

Has the movement failed? Likely from its own success. Still, I suspect, the hope for renewal remains very much connected with that early canon of conservative literature, from Kirk’s Conservative Mind to Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences.

Consistent, principled conservatism (as an ideology), should be able to articulate what these goals should be and provide reasons why they are worth pursuing in the first place. What would society look like if conservatives had their way?

Fox News, talk radio, and conservative journals like National Review, have largely been ineffective in articulating the “conservative” vision for society.

Mainstream conservatism (as a disposition) merely plays the reactionary actor in a historical dialectic that seems pre-determined to move inexorably leftward.

I’m not sure why anyone would want to continue to bet on a proven loser.