One of the things we’ve witnessed over the past decade or so is nothing less than the birth of an entirely new ideology in modern America. As anyone who watched the Republican National Convention last week can attest, the modern Republican Party is not exactly the party of Barry Goldwater or even, quite, that of Ronald Reagan. While this is in some ways a lamentable development (I shuddered inwardly every time someone started talked about increased funding for some social program) it is also probably a necessary one.

The conservatism that Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich campaigned upon was a very admirable political ideology, but not a functioning governing philosophy. It’s nice to talk about throwing out the New Deal, banning abortion, or junking the Department of Education: but, short of a violent revolution, it isn’t going to happen. This is to be lamented, of course, but it is also something that must be accepted. Reagan himself governed far less conservatively than he campaigned (both when he was Governor of California and when he was President) because government-by-absolute-ideology is impossible in a democracy.

This is one reason I very rapidly lose patience with those so-called ‘conservatives’ who are prepared to abandon President Bush over this or that issue. If you magically installed Pat Buchannan or Tom Tancredo themselves in the Oval Office, they’d have about as much success it conducting mass deportations of illegal immigrants as every President of the modern era has. Now, you might point out that no President of the modern era has tried; and I would point out to you that there’s a reason for that.

Absolutist social conservatism and anti-government rhetoric are very appealing to some voters, but they aren’t principles which you can effectively govern upon. You might win an election on that platform, if you find a perfect storm, but the odds are that you’d win exactly that one and then see all of your reforms overturned in less than two years.

This is not to counsel defeatism: real change is possible and real action, real conservative action, remains the goal: but it cannot be achieved overnight and victory cannot be gained without sacrifice.

Because, over a number of generations, the Republican Party has become America’s majority party it has had to transform its philosophy from that of an opposition to that of a government. When you’re in opposition you can scream about whatever you like, you can tar the governing party for everything that goes wrong, and you can subsist on the twin illusions that both there can be a perfect government and that you can provide that government. Such moral clarity, however, fades quickly once one is handed the actual task of governing. This pertinent fact is fully recognized by Newt himself, as he’s made clear in recent years as a commentator. In fact, I suspect it may have been what he had in mind all along.

A sign of maturity is making peace with the world as it is. You need not be happy with how things are, but you must accept that things cannot be changed overnight and that man cannot be altered by fiat. The new conservatism is the old conservatism after it graduated from college, got married, bought a house, and had two kids. It still doesn’t like big government, but understands that it has to be accommodated to a reasonable degree. It doesn’t like to see America, in Robert Bork’s memorable phrase, “slouching towards Gomorrah” but understands that mere screaming will do nothing to change it and will, in fact, render the forces of conservatism incapable of achieving even half of what they sought to do in the first place.

Now, some people have suggested that the present Republican Party is similar to the Democratic Party of the Truman Era. I reject that suggestion, and here’s why: the goal of the Democrats of that era in using government was to assist the people. The goal of the new Republicans is to use the government to strengthen the nation. These are fundamentally different concepts.

You can call it “Compassionate Conservatism” or “Bush Conservatism” or “Neo-conservatism”: all of those names apply to some degree. To put it most simply, it is a mature conservatism. The name I prefer is “Hamiltonian Conservatism”, in honor of the man whose vision made him the true father of modern America and whose ideas, in which a strong and effective central government was to be used to make the nation stronger, are seemingly the basis of this new (and old) ideology.

Alexander Hamilton was a great man. The first Secretary of the Treasury and the principal author of the Federalist Papers, he ought to have been President, but his life was tragically cut short by the treachery of Aaron Burr (who was a member of the party which eventually become the Democrats). He believed that a strong central government was the only force with the ability to generate the credit which would pay for the armies which would win the wars which would make America great. He understood that, when it comes to governing, you have your principles and then you have the things that you can do and that you must, ultimately, opt for the doable over the idealistic.

Hamilton was a man who, because of his tragic childhood, understood the negative and eternal truth about human nature. American conservatives, because they have grown up in a world of such hope, often forget the realities of the world. We can’t save everyone. We can’t expect the best of everyone. All we can do it fight like the Devil and snatch what we can get.

He wanted a President who would rule “on good behavior” and a system which, in most features, resembled a Constitutional Monarchy. Needless to say: he didn’t get it. But he didn’t let that deter him: he went on and became one of the most passionate and articulate advocates of the Constitution because he understood that it was the best that he was going to get. Many modern conservatives in that position would sulk off and oppose the Constitution on the grounds that it was imperfect, but Hamilton understood an important and essential truth: because man is imperfect all of the works of man are imperfect and this we must accept if we are to move forward in this world.

As a general rule, “all or nothing” absolutists in politics (or pretty much anywhere) end up with nothing. Only now, after thirty-three years, are we having any success against abortion: and that small success comes only because the focus of the movement has begun to shift from radical, overnight change to presentable and incremental change. However, this job has been made more difficult because our previous position have left people with the (correct) impression that the incremental steps were propose are merely meant as a prelude to the total ban we wanted in the first place. Thus, people are roused to fight even completely sensible measures as though they were a call for a total ban.

This also means, in general, that we’re going to have to accept and learn to manage some degree of social spending and some degree of government involvement in the economy. This is not to say that I regard either of these things as good, quite the opposite, but rather that they are political necessities because a corrupted people demand them and will not be talked into giving them up anytime soon.

The phrase “Bismarckian Conservatism” might also apply here. Bismarck supported social programs (in fact, he created the most through social welfare program in the world at the time), not because he was interested in giving pensions to old people, but because giving pensions to old people would maintain social stability and therefore help him to make Germany stronger and more united.

Conservatives need to look at social programs in a different way: they shouldn’t really be viewed as an effort to “help” anyone. As a general rule giving things away for free is exactly the wrong way to assist anyone, since it is only the sacrifices entailed in earning that invests something with true value. In any case, a fair survey of that percentage of the population which remains dependent upon the government suggests that they’re largely beyond help. Our declining culture will, combined with the rising standards necessary to advance in the economy, create an increasing “underclass” as time goes on. Eventually, people on the left are going to really get around to organizing those people.

So, what are we to do? There’s no point in cutting them off from their benefits, doing that will simply rouse them from their stupor and get more of them to the polls on Election Day. Rather, we should consider maintaining (or even increasing) their benefits while, at the exact same time, making it harder for them to vote (I recommend modern and simple literacy tests for this purpose. From my extensive time spent examining present and future members of our underclass, I’m quite convinced that a series of simple language and math questions would be enough to discourage them from voting). Of course, it might cost us some extra money in the short-term to keep the dregs relatively happy and silent but, in the long term, it will be a great investment, as fewer of them vote and therefore allow us to make up for the money spent by electing wiser governments which will allow for faster economic growth.

In this sense the proposal is both Hamiltonian and Bismarckian: it advocates a pragmatic policy which views social programs not as a means of assistance, but rather as a means of control.

To this end, we must also consider the separation of middle-class entitlements from underclass entitlements. When both the underclass and the middle-class are dependent on universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare, they’re likely to vote (to some degree) as though they share common interests). Means-testing all government programs and offering private alternatives is the long-term solution to this problem.

Concepts such as the “Ownership Society” are designed with this in mind. Why, for example, would it be desirable for, ultimately, everyone to have their own personal retirement accounts with their own personal investments? Yes, it is useful because it’ll make more money over the long term and therefore sustain Social Security longer, however, the more important effect would be that if the government offered personal retirement savings accounts then virtually everyone in America would eventually become an investor and, in such a position, will be far more inclined to support pro-market policies than they otherwise would. The same is ultimately true of people who own their own homes: people who have a financial stake in the present society are far more likely to support policies which appear likely to enhance their personal wealth and to oppose any sort of radical change.

In other words, our plan seeks to promote the cause of the actual “middle class”, the people who do the most work in America and who also (usefully) have the most votes. We seek to make the middle-class and the rich richer and the poor about as poor (but possibly happier). Think of it as a necessary amputation. We will discard a diseased limb to save the whole.

Hamiltonian Conservatism is also outwardly socially moderate. This is not out of conviction, but rather of necessity. As conservatives we must realize that we cannot radically remake human nature or alter societal tides with the means available to us. Therefore, we must make peace with and learn to manage the changes that are occurring in society. Absolutist social conservatism is a political dead end: something that the abortion debate should tell you. Anti-abortion fanatics have been chaining themselves to the doors of clinics for more than three decades with virtually nothing to show for their exertions. Moreover, by presenting themselves as absolutists in the debate they’ve managed to marginalize themselves.

Fundamentally, the tactic of the Hamiltonian Conservative on abortion (and gay marriage) ought to be to emulate the tactics the left have used in promoting the homosexual cause: ultra-moderate rhetoric used to justify seemingly harmless small measures which, ultimately, will inflict so many blows upon the other side as to bring about a generalized collapse.

This might be a good time to consider how a future President Giuliani or President Schwarzenegger. A Republican Party with a moderate face would, in modern America, be a nearly unstoppable force. Frankly, I suspect that either, if they were to lead us in 2008 with full conservative backing, would win a shattering 1932 or 1964-style victory. One which would sink boatloads of Democratic officeholders.

Now, what’s the advantage of this to social conservatives, you might ask? Simple: it lets the GOP potentially achieve its goals on these issues. A paradox? Not really. A moderate Republican President would understand the need to accommodate the Republican base and, because they would have a hold upon centrist voters, might be able to allow for more substantive action of these issues than an ultra-conservative one would. It’s a classic negotiating strategy: President Schwarzenegger goes to the Democrats in Congress and tells them that, “Well, you’ll have to support my marriage amendment because, if you don’t, I can’t control these people.” Does it get us everything? No. Does it get us more than we might get otherwise? Possibly.

The time has come for conservatives to begin to consider the new options open to us. We have achieved much of what can be achieved by shouting: we’re steadily taking control over government. This control, I think, we should be able to enhance even if John Kerry somehow wins in November, since the underlying trends continue to favor us.

What is needed now is increased tactical flexibility. We should not change our goals, but we should consider that arguing for something and doing something require fundamentally different mindsets and actions.