The last two weeks’ campaigning in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary told us four things: That Marco Rubio is a formidable force in presidential politics. That Hillary Rodham Clinton is more vulnerable than any front-runner since 2000, perhaps since 1984. That Donald J. Trump, even when wounded, has more staying power than his rivals hoped he might have.
And the fourth thing, by far the most important for the shape of our civic life for the remainder of the first quarter of the 21st century and perhaps beyond: that American politics is being marked by a titanic struggle over the character of conservatism, a struggle that may redefine conservatism in the most dramatic fashion since the early years of the Republic.
Advertisement
For what was evident in the snow-encrusted fields and sparkling new urban centers of Iowa and in the frosty villages and sprawling suburbs of New Hampshire was more than a battle for the two presidential nominations. At play in both states was a battle between two faces of conservatism — and increasingly it became evident that while that battle was being fought in both places, one of them (New Hampshire) represents the old face of conservatism, the other (Iowa) the new face of conservatism.
One of these conservatisms wants to preserve the culture, the other wants to change the culture. One wants to revere history, the other to alter history. One wants to cultivate tradition, the other to obliterate tradition. One looks to the glittering past for inspiration, the other to a shiny future. One sees conservatism as an outlook, the other as an outlet.
This is a simplification, to be sure, for there are elements of both strains in both states — and, indeed, throughout the country. But while conservatives, and the presidential candidates who are seeking their support in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, may be arguing about tax policy, welfare philosophy, and immigration strategies, the real debate is about ways of looking at the world — and, at base, there is a vital and vigorous collision between those who want to preserve the world as we know it and those who want to change the world utterly.
Advertisement
One of these strains is rigorously secular, the other tinted with faith. ‘‘Most conservatives agree on much less government involvement and much less intrusion in people’s lives,’’ says David A. Caputo, a political scientist who served as president of Pace University. “When evangelicalism is mixed in, it is more concerned with creating a godly state on earth. Traditional conservatism is more concerned with individual rights.’’
One of these strains of conservatism is marked by preservation, the other by rebellion. One prizes insider experience, the other the clear-eyed view of the outsider.
The old conservatism was rooted in Edmund Burke and in skepticism of the French Revolution. In his masterwork, which is often regarded as the founding document of conservatism, Burke saw society as an alliance between the generations, and his conservatism was especially chary of change. “A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views,’’ he wrote in 1790. “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.’’
The new conservatives have only contempt for this outlook. It is instructive that when the new conservatism began to emerge, in the mid-1990s, its early avatar was Newt Gingrich, who looked not to Burke but to Alvin Toffler, best known for a 1970 book tellingly titled “Future Shock.’’ Gingrich appropriated the title of a successive Toffler volume, “The Third Wave,’’ both to describe his vision and to serve as a metaphor for the new Republican majority that took control of the House in 1995, after 40 years of Democratic rule.
Advertisement
Gingrich had his brief moment in the sun of presidential politics, in 2012, but it is likely that Rubio’s moment may be longer and more significant. And while all decades of American history are in some ways transitions to a new era, and all presidencies are bridges to future administrations, the ascendancy of Rubio in the middle of this decade stands out as an especially important development.
Whether by natural inclination or cynical calculation, Rubio, the freshman senator from Florida, nonetheless stands as a bridge between the two conservatisms. In Iowa he reached for the new conservatives, and the most remarkable comment he made in the final Des Moines debate was to speak of “Jesus Christ, who came down to earth and died for our sins.’’ In New Hampshire, he encouraged the notion that he was an establishment candidate, thus competing not so much with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, or with Trump, but instead with former governor Jeb Bush of Florida, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, and Governor John Kasich of Ohio.
And what was the bridge for this bridge figure? His “victory’’ speech after finishing third in Iowa. His comments were remarkable for many reasons — few candidates have the nerve to offer victory speeches when two rivals finish ahead of them — but mostly because they combined elements of the two conservatisms.
Advertisement
On one shore of that bridge was his appeal to the new conservatism, preoccupied more than the old version with the wealth gap. “When I’m our nominee, we are going to grow the conservative movement,’’ he said. “We’re going to take our message to the people who are struggling paycheck to paycheck.’’
But, less than a minute later, he crossed his bridge and reached the other shore, offering a paean to American tradition and history. “Two centuries ago an extraordinary generation living in one place at one time in America . . . declared their independence,’’ he said, being sure to add: ‘’[W]e will embrace all the principles that made America great, and we will apply them to the unique challenges of the new century.’’
The struggle continues, through Tuesday’s balloting and then beyond. It’s far more important than the battle of television ads and the sparring in debates. More important — and more enduring in its significance.
David M. Shribman, a former Globe Washington bureau chief, is the executive editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He can be reached at dshribman@post-gazette.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShribmanPG.