A Guardian newspaper opinion poll in the United Kingdom reveals that support for the Conservative Party has consistently stayed about that of support of the Labour Party since October of 2007. Although, the extent of that lead has fluctuated, it has stayed ahead. However, things are a little different for the Right in the U.S.. The Republican Party has consistently been behind the Democratic Party in the Gallup polls since 2005. What is the difference between the two nations, and what is the Conservative Party doing differently than the Republican Party? The Rt. Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP, the Former Leader of the British Conservative Party, came to the Heritage Foundation to discuss just this.
Smith gives five “ingredients” in a recipe for success for the Republican Party. First, there needs to be “an acceptance of the need for some sort of change” by the party. The second “ingredient” is recognizing “the importance of choosing a form of change that is consistent with the intrinsic character of conservatism.” The third is “the insufficiency of policy alone.” The fourth ingredient is “the importance of a visionary, strong leader eventually with a party that is ready to unite behind them.” The fifth ingredient binds all of the others together: “social policy becomes central to the future of a conservative policy—party role.”
He argues that these themes are “not an add-on to conservatism, but integral to conservatism for four very good reasons.” The first reason is that “unless Britain starts to mend its broken society, the cost of fractured families and poorly educated workers and dysfunctional adults makes Britain’s economy more and more uncompetitive… as the economy turns down, reform of society in this area becomes more and more critical, not less.” His second reason is that “[w]e are not just going against big government, but all forces that crush the social institutions that lie between the individual on one hand and the state on the other… If civil society does not become stronger, nurturing more self-sufficient and vigorous citizens, there’s no possibility of light-touch regulation if certain moral values are absent from our culture. And there’s no competitive economy if families don’t encourage their children to learn, to excel, and to move on.” The third reason he lists is “the cohesive society.”
He explains, “I don’t think you can lecture people about freedom, an important factor here in the U.S. more than almost…if the parents think that the life chances of their children are set at birth and that they are set for failure….A cohesive society [is] where every parent really believes that their children have a chance of a better life then they do.” The fourth factor he lists “is a by-product of the other three. In emphasizing society, conservatism isn’t just seen as the party of the wealthy and the strong. A party that is good for me…will also become a broadly based party…government should be good for them AND for their neighbor. Most people…would like to feel…that their government governs, ultimately for the betterment of the whole nation.”
Smith says, “At the heart of change lay strong families, a completed education, good employment opportunities, and a freedom from drugs and other addictions,” a “deep-rooted change” that seems natural for the U.S. to undertake.
Heather Latham is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
