RSS Feed MenuNo person passes through his or her youth without adults constantly reminding him or her that, along with the others in his or her age group, they are the “future of society” or “the leaders of tomorrow”. Initially inspiring, such clichés quickly become patronizing when it is evident that, for no matter how much elders enjoy repeating these sentiments to their younger colleagues, these platitudes are seldom translated into actual responsibilities. Young Americans in college, recent graduates, or the slightly-older “young professional” simply are not given the opportunity to demonstrate the promise they are so often told they possess.
In the conservative movement and Republican Party especially, indifference to the young leaders in these respective groups, and the youth as a general political constituency, has been so staggering one would assume it was a devised political strategy. As a former chairman of the American University College Republicans, and political director for the D.C. College Republican Federation, I frequently witnessed first hand the lack of coordination, communication, and use of young Republicans on political campaigns and party initiatives. Yet for young conservatives and Republicans across the country, this election cycle brought disappointment to new heights with how we are either misused, or unused by movement and party elders. There was no use of the College Republican infrastructure by the John McCain campaign to recruit supporters and register voters on college campuses; independent organizations were formed with no clear leadership structure or campaign affiliation. When the Obama campaign was using new media to text message supporters reminding them to go and vote, the McCain campaign didn’t even create a “Students for McCain” website! After the election, when the leaders of the conservative movement convened in Virginia to discuss the fallout, the inability to reach out to young conservatives, and the youth in general, was not effectively addressed.
It was for primarily for these reasons that I became a founding member of the Young Conservative Coalition (the YCC). YCC was born out of the belief that the conservative movement has in its ranks young professionals who have already demonstrated both the passion and the ability to find new ways to articulate, market, and implement conservative principles not only to those in their generation, but towards making headway on issues that the current GOP leadership has been squeamish about discussing, such as healthcare, and the environment. In an attempt to reconcile the increasing amounts of “factions” on the Right (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, “national-security conservatives”), the YCC has members from every major conservative organization — think tanks, law firms, lobbying groups, media outlets, grassroots organizations, college groups, etc. Correspondingly, our first project was to meet in Lake Anna, Virginia to draft “The Lake Anna Declaration,” a 21st-century “Sharon Statement”. Though a product of compromise, this document provides a sound definition of conservatism for the 21st century, and through the supplemental “plank memos” that are currently being drafted to reinforce the arguments made in the declaration, it is a great starting point for a conversation about what it means to be a conservative in 2009.
In addition to providing a reliable network of young conservatives around the district, and eventually, nationwide, the YCC is going to be developing policy resolutions, coordinating national summits, events with policymakers, and using new media to bring a voice to alternative conservative policies in a progressive age. Our first event at CPAC with Senator Jim DeMint brought over 300 young conservatives together in support of the Declaration, and our first monthly action meeting this Saturday will include the distribution of an “open letter” to conservative organization leaders, every GOP state chairman, as well as Chairman Steele indicating how young conservatives intend to help reform the movement and rebrand the party over the next year. April 22nd, Earth Day, will provide the YCC its first opportunity to re-frame the debate over climate change with an event outside the EPA that is slated to attract some high profile lawmakers on the issue. In addition to de-bunking conservative stereotypes on the environment and making the perils of cap-and-trade understandable to the general population, the YCC is putting together a policy proposal that will demonstrate how and why conservatives should re-frame the argument on climate change: from the “zero-sum” approach where we must choose between economic prosperity and environmental conservation, to a “prosperity approach” where the economy is used to create ways to conserve energy and the environment.
In the months ahead the YCC will be organizing a national right-of-center summit for young conservatives to improve coordination of message and activism in the movement. All of these initiatives are the first steps in creating a more fluid conservative movement with a base more informed of conservative principles, and a political dialogue that is reflective of the freshness that this youth-led organization can bring to the Right. I hope you will visit our website, endorse our platform, ask us questions, come to our events, and, especially if you’re a young conservative, finally embrace the leadership potential you were always told that you have. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, after all.
Stewardship // Apr 6, 2009 at 5:23 am
With the GOP losing the young adult vote by a 2-to-1 margin, mobilization and reaching out to the young should be a top priority. This should also include reaching out to people who don’t yet self-identify as conservatives. I hope the YCC will use their own brains, though, and not allow themselves to be “brainwashed” by party elders. The author’s comment about “the perils of cap and trade” leads me to believe that YCC is just another conduit for the handful of “conservative” voices who have led us to near irrelevance as a party. I’d encourage the YCC members to check out the Young Republicans National Federation’s Energy and Environment Policy paper. I’d also remind them of Russell Kirk’s quote, “Nothing is more conservative than conservation.” Kirk was Ronald Reagan’s conservative confessor.
barker13 // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:33 am
Will, you’re exactly right; the key is to EXPLAIN why “our” position on certain issues is the right one and “their” (the Democrat’s) position is the wrong one. And yes… Cap and Trade is a perfect example.The other key is that once we take positions, defend these positions, and agitate for these policies, we must be true to our rhetoric, true to our ideals.To paraphrase James Carville… “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid!”Stewardship… explaining “the perils of Cap and Trade” isn’t going to hurt the GOP. What hurts the GOP is when we identify ourselves as anti-pork and then support… er… pork. What hurt the GOP is when we identified ourselves as anti-deficit and then expanded… er… deficits. It was the betrayal of our rhetorical/idealistic policies when we were in power that led to us being kicked out of power – it was “the hypocrisy, stupid.”You’re free of course to favor and even advocate for Cap and Trade, but if you think opposing Cap and Trade is a loser for the GOP… I respectfully disagree. The GOP should be for “drill here, drill now.” The GOP should be for expanded refinery capacity, more nuclear power, technological innovation. Basically, we should be the Party of “More Power at Less Cost.”BILL
ottovbvs // Apr 6, 2009 at 6:47 am
You appear to have your work cut out. I read at the Atlantic a couple of days ago that in the age group 19-30 Obama has 81% approval…the figure for congressional republicans was 8%! And I think those heading into the 19-29 age group lean in his direction too. I attended a music concert in a school yesterday and there were pictures of him everywhere, kids drawings, posters, etc. It bears out what I’ve thought for some time that he’s headed to being an iconographic president like Kennedy (who I remember) and FDR whose picture used to hang in elderly relatives homes. If this guy is in office for eight years you’re going to end up with a huge bloc of the electorate that is at least favorably disposed to the democrats for the next 50 years.
Will Haun // Apr 6, 2009 at 7:48 am
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Stewardship, we have every interest in “using our own brains” to develop Conservative alternatives. That’s why we adopted our own unique platform, devised a declaration of Conservative philosophy in a way that we think can be best articulated and most marketable, and why we are placing a strong emphasis on actually explaining our positions through the “plank memos”, resolutions, and proposals I described above. I hope you will continue to follow what we do on the energy issue and others to see for yourself.
Stewardship // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:05 am
Barker- Since the US sits on just 3% of the world’s oil reserves and we consume more than 20% of world oil production, it’s going to take more than a bumper sticker slogan (drill here, drill now, pay less) to solve our energy problems.Last fall, when President Bush made the push for greater domestic production, OPEC met and cut their own output by more than our increase. Since every drop of oil we produce is sold on the world market, we couldn’t do anything to control pricing. Clean and renewable energy is an opportunity for the US to innovate, create higher paying jobs, create wealth, meet our own energy needs, and, perhaps, become a net exporter of energy.My fear is that so many people who self-define themselves as “conservative” have never read Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or Richard Weaver…the men who defined the conservative movement. Despite the best efforts of certain talk radio hosts and a handful of politicians, being conservative is not equivalent to being an unfettered capitalist.Fellow Republicans need to revisit recent history. Ronald Reagan led the global ban on CFC’s to protect the ozone layer. The first President Bush instituted cap and trade of sulfur dioxide to combat acid rain. In both cases, voices denied the need to act and decried the economic calamity that would be caused by such action. In both cases, they were wrong. Industry met the programs’ goals in a fraction of the time originally thought necessary.Of course, young voters aren’t old enough to remember those lessons (or that Republicans were once the leaders on conservation matters). A conservative, by definition, is someone who acts to pass along a better life to future generations; a conservative is not someone who’s priority is to maximize earnings for the next quarter or his/her IRA at the expense of future generations.
sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:30 am
Stewardship: Partly as a response to the austerity of the Carter Administration, and partly as euphoria following the end of the Cold War, modern conservatism became a cheerleader for conspicuous consumption.Swagger became the new conservative mantra: Drive the biggest, most gas-guzzling SUVs, trucks and RVs; own the biggest house (climate-controlled throughout, of course); eat the biggest steaks for dinner every night; and of course, own the biggest guns permitted by law.It was emotional and highly illogical–Reaganomics was based on supply-side theory, whereas conspicuous consumption is Keynesian. But swagger is fun, and a nationalistic symbol of how Reagan had stomped on liberals, and stomped on the USSR.The only problem is, swagger doesn’t last forever, as we have now seen.
sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 9:36 am
ottovbvs: Michael Barone made an interesting observation about today’s young people: They have the most transnationalistic attitudes of any generation. And that’s a direct result of their having grown up with the Internet, which lets you surf around the world, and interact around the world, and shop around the world, without any thought to national boundaries.This transnationalism makes young people particularly receptive to “one planet” type arguments, like those involved in the dangers of global warming and what to do about it. The defiantly nationalistic attitude of many conservatives is not going to appeal to young people very much. It also makes young people even more tolerant of diverse lifestyles than their baby-boomer parents were. Social conservatism, particularly opposition to same-sex marriage as seen on the YCC website, isn’t going to sell well either.So despite what the YCC is trying to do, I don’t think the big problem for them is lack of organization, or lack of coordination of message. The problem is the message itself.
barker13 // Apr 6, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Re: Stewardship; 8:05 AM”Barker- Since the US sits on just 3% of the world’s oil reserves and we consume more than 20% of world oil production, it’s going to take more than a bumper sticker slogan (drill here, drill now, pay less) to solve our energy problems.”(*SIGH*)http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.htmlJust exhibit A, Stew. (*SMILE*)Com’on… step one… revise your attitude, chief! What ever happened to that “can do” spirit that made America #1? First things first… if the world wants to keep upping its energy usage (and it does, Stew… it does…) then mankind need to generate more energy.In terms of environmental “friendliness,” who do you want “leading” the path towards increased energy production – the U.S. or China?Oh… yeah… China…(*SNORT*)The Chinese are decimating the earth’s environment as I type. They’re a bottom line sorta crowd and neither the CCP nor the PLA are big on Earth Day celebrations, recycling, and hemp clothing. Got it?America must be the leader of the world in energy production and transmission technology and production in order to do so in the most environmentally safe way possible. Unfortunately, misguided folks stand in the way of this. Rather than calling upon more Americans to join the misguided, you might wanna echo my call that they join the “Drill+” crowd.”Last fall, when President Bush made the push for greater domestic production, OPEC met and cut their own output by more than our increase. Since every drop of oil we produce is sold on the world market, we couldn’t do anything to control pricing.”Stew. Get it through your head. The more options the U.S. has, the more refinery capacity, the more production capacity, the safer and better off we are – and that goes for the world as a whole.Heck… if you’re going to have deficit “stimulus” spending… I’d favor the U.S. government building (and owning) actual refineries that can be leased to private concerns when needed in order to give our government the ability to refine Strategic Petroleum Reserve stockpiles on demand to deal with OPEC caused market disruptions. “Clean and renewable energy…”Yes, yes, yes… NUCLEAR!!! “The first President Bush instituted cap and trade of sulfur dioxide to combat acid rain.”Glad you brought acid rain up…http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=14138Go figure, huh… (*CHUCKLE*)Seriously… Stew… I’m not sure whom you consider the “pro-pollution” segment of the U.S. population, but for what it’s worth, I’m not part of it. We all want clean air, clean water, etc. I also want inexpensive energy.I have no “problem” with solar, wind, whatever, but in the real world, for the foreseeable future, humankind depends upon petroleum to do the heavy lifting. If and when (as) we switch from inexpensive petroleum and coal to equally (or at least nearly at first and on the way to equally or even less) inexpensive energy sources, I’ll be there cheering.BILL
Will Haun // Apr 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Stewardship, just because we were young during the time of Reagan does not mean we are necessarily disinclined to learn lessons from the past; just as the fact that you were likely not around to see Edmund Burke debate on the floor of parliament does not mean that you do not heed his views. Many of us in the YCC, including yours truly, are well versed in Burke, Kirk, Weaver, many of the other founders of National Review in addition to WFB, Goldwater and Reagans writings. It is that intellectual tradition that informed our preamble in the Lake Anna declaration which I encourage you to view on our website. That said, I really dont see how supporting a massive regulatory policy via Cap-and-trade that will cost most American families around $3,000 a year to implement, will likely hinder economic prosperity and will do nothing to enhance alternative energy, end our foreign dependence upon oil, and ship job overseas is really fitting into the stewardship of patrimony model Kirk outlined for us. I know thats not the inheritance I want to pass on. Regarding Social Conservatism, the general theme the YCC is attempting to articulate when it comes to social Conservatism is this: we as Conservatives wish to preserve the institutions that were deemed by our Framers as indispensible supports to political prosperity (and thus the Constitution), which in turn are institutions that limit state power. Ensuring that ones religious free exercise is not prohibited is just as important as ensuring business are free from an expansive regulatory power by the federal government. All are essential to preserving freedom in the United States. In the issue of marriage specifically, I think the massive support for gay marriage amongst the youth of today is representative of an increasingly accepting attitude towards homosexuals, which is something that should be encouraged as they are individuals just like anyone else. Where I think our generation would need to consider their views however, is in light of other Constitutionally protected freedoms. For example, if same sex marriage is legalized on equal protection grounds, what prevents the Catholic Church from being taken to court for refusing to marry a gay couple on free exercise grounds? Do we really want to be in the business of fining, or worse, arresting priests and nuns who dont want to marry homosexuals? And does equal protection more generally even speak to sexual orientation one way or the other? These are questions the youth has yet to ask themselves I think, and so before we write off social Conservatism for the sake of seeming political convenience, lets demonstrate why it is valued by many: to preserve the institutions that limit state power over individuals lives.
sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Will Haun: The Catholic *Church* cannot be sued for refusing to marry a gay couple–the First Amendment takes care of that.More problematic is Catholic *Charities*, the worldwide network of faith-based Catholic charitable organizations. We had a case like that here in Massachusetts where I live: Catholic Charities used to operate the most successful child adoption program in Massachusetts, placing thousands of orphan children with loving parents. I say “used to,” because gay activists successfully sued Catholic Charities for refusing to place orphan children with gay parent couples. Catholic Charities offered a compromise–place children with gay couples via another adoption agency–but no dice. CC was ordered to place orphan children with gay parent couples. Rather than violate its own religious principles, CC shut down their adoption program altogether. Even some gays, like the late Boston talk-show host David Brudnoy, thought that gay activists went way too far here.The rights vs. responsibilities of faith-based organizations in a pluralistic society is a difficult one. Secularist purists insist that just allowing faith-based charitable organizations to receive government funds to support their work is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Obviously, I disagree. But a faith-based charity can’t be allowed to discriminate either, at least not without losing its government funding: Catholic Charities’ adoption service couldn’t refuse to place orphan children with Protestant parents. And if society decides that gay couples should be treated equally as hetero couples, then a faith-based organization wouldn’t be able to discriminate against gay couples either.
sinz54 // Apr 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Will Haun: I agree that cap-and-trade is a massive boondoggle. Liberals love it because all that complex capping and trading hides the true cost of compliance; companies simply pass the higher cost of compliance onto consumers with no explanation.For conservative economists going back to before Milton Friedman, the solution for dealing with economic externalities like air pollution and water pollution was to enact a pollution tax. The equivalent for global warming would be to enact a carbon tax. It’s simple, it’s clean–and just as with the gasoline taxes we currently pay, the amount of the tax would be visible, spelled out for you right at the gasoline pump. That would raise the consciousness of Americans as to just how costly it’s going to be to head off global warming. It would be a major incentive for Americans to switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles.The GOP actually has a decent track record on environmental issues: Teddy Roosevelt pioneered the National Park system, Richard Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law, the Reagan Administration dealt successfully with the hole in the ozone layer, and Bush 43 had his “Clean Skies” initiative. It’s a good story to tell young Americans–if so many conservatives weren’t actually ashamed of it.
Will Haun // Apr 6, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Sinz54: I was attempting to allude to the problems the Catholic Church has had in Massachusetts since the Court’s ruling a few years ago. Though I would not put the question of the Catholic Church in a particular state being sued for refusing to marry a gay couple in a state where gay marriage is legal out of the question. Much of that would largely be dependent upon how the state views the establishment clause in light of the equal protection question. I don’t think the Supreme Court’s current composition would uphold such a ruling, but that’s beside the point. The point I’m trying to make though is that there are a lot of potential Constitutional questions that emerge with the issue of same sex marriage; Constitutional questions that should be posed to my generation as they have likely not considered them. Regarding the track record on environmental issues, I am in complete agreement that there is an inherent respect for Conservation in Conservatism; we are stewards of both society and our surroundings, especially as we’ve come to recognize the interconnectedness of the two. I know the YCC will be incorporating our record on these issues into our Earth Day event.
esurience // Apr 6, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Will Huan: Nobody has the the legal right to get married in a Catholic Church. Nobody. Not you, not me. Therefore there is no question of equal protection there. This canard about churches being forced to marry gay couples is so disgustingly disingenuous. If you’re worried about equal protection being applied to gay people, then how about supporting, democratically, our ability to get married? Then there’d be no reason to go through the courts. With regards the adoption situation, both sides were wrong to take the nuclear option. Abandoning the adoption agency entirely because some kids would be raised by gay couples is profoundly immoral — but so are the actions of the activists who forced their hand to do that. But it had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The state adoption agency prohibited adoption services from prohibiting based on sexual orientation. And the Catholic adoption agency used to comply with this but then changed their position at urging from the Vatican. (For background on all this, see: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27350.html ). Also, I notice in the marriage section on your platform, there’s not even support for civil unions for gay couples. Why not?
insightdeluxe2 // Apr 7, 2009 at 12:08 am
Don’t waste your time, young man! Modern Conservatism is dead.
sinz54 // Apr 7, 2009 at 5:48 pm
esurience sez: “Abandoning the adoption agency entirely because some kids would be raised by gay couples is profoundly immoral” Not if you’re a Catholic who believes that it’s immoral for gay couples to raise children. In that case, to “go along to get along” is the immoral choice.Perhaps you’ve forgotten this, but throughout history, many devout Christians have willingly chosen DEATH rather than be forced to renounce the principles of their faith. Evidently some gay activists forgot that too, or they would have realized that you can’t force a devout Christian to renounce the principles of his faith.It’s what the gay activists did that was profoundly immoral. They tried to force a Catholic organization to do that which was against their religious faith. They tried to use the power of the courts to bludgeon a Catholic organization into doing something profoundly un-Catholic. Shame on them.
esurience // Apr 7, 2009 at 7:45 pm
sinz54, you wrote: “Not if you’re a Catholic who believes that it’s immoral for gay couples to raise children.” — How does their beliefs change the morality of their actions? Are you a moral relativist? And let me say again that they used to go along with the anti-discrimination laws of MA. Let me be clear, I think in this case it would have been in the interest of the state to allow the Catholic adoption agency to discriminate, in the interests of the greater good served (and the fact that that there are other adoption agencies willing to serve gay couples). But the actions of the Church in abandoning the agency entirely is profoundly immoral. Let kids suffer because some of them might be raised by a gay couple? It’s wrong. It’s sick. And having immoral beliefs doesn’t make actions based on those beliefs moral… unless your a moral relativist.