The Summit on Principled Conservatism was ultimately a victory and constituted momentous first steps for an effort to restore the principles and values that once guided the conservative movement and the Republican Party. But there’s much more work to be done, and perhaps some lessons to be learned, before this effort can grow into a true movement.

This is a special issue of From the Hawk’s Nest where I discuss my observations of the Summit on Principled Conservatism that I was blessed to attend a little over a week ago. (Can you spot the back of my head in the picture above)

There Were Giants in the Room

Whether it was the organizers of the event, the panelists and moderators, or the members of the crowd, there was more decency, character, intellectual integrity, and raw grit in that room than the Oval Office has seen in quite a few years.

All of us were drawn to this little get together at the National Press Club in response to the organizing efforts of Evan McMullin and Heath Mayo. This was the second time I’ve been able to interact with Evan and my first time meeting Heath in person. I wish all the haters and naysayers of these two men could meet them in person and look in their eyes. There’s some exhaustion in those eyes, and the demeanor of men who have weathered considerable storms, but also passion, fire, and resolve.

Contrary to the smears these men often face on social media, they are not grifters, operatives, or leftist plants. To borrow my favorite line from a recent Disney movie, they’re simply honest men trying to “do the next right thing” in a political environment full of hate, hysteria, and emotion. They deserve a lot of credit for making the summit possible.

The panelists and moderators were, on the whole, excellent and thought-provoking. They brought a passion and zeal for conservatism that was refreshing and encouraging to the conversation, but it was a passion and zeal that was largely tempered by intellectual consideration and soundness.

While pundits across the pond opined on how “rats” is part of the word “Democrats”, these thoughtful conservatives meant business as they discussed the ways in which Trumpism had abandoned core tenets of conservatism and has ultimately frustrated some much-needed adjustments in messaging and inclusiveness to ensure conservatism remains relevant for the rising generations.

But perhaps some of the best parts of the summit were the intervening moments between panels and the “after party” at the Hamilton across the street. I was able to meet and shake hands with numerous principled conservatives, and put faces to Twitter handles. It was an experience that punctuated just how poor a platform Twitter is for true heart-to-heart relevant political dialogue. Even though the summit ended at five, I didn’t make it back to my hotel room until eleven.

I think I speak for everyone who was able to attend the summit (in good faith) that it was an amazing experience to be able to discuss our present political environment from a conservative standpoint without having to deflect derision for standing against Trump.

Three Planks of Agreement

There was some considerable intellectual diversity at the summit, both in the audience and on the panels. This is a positive thing for an effort that’s going to have to be coalitional if it's going to become a movement, but will also present some growing pains as activists, pundits, and writers who have largely bucked the old and crumbling institutions, and gained followings for their individual stances and positions, re-learn how to come together and craft viable joint efforts.

But there were several clear planks of agreement upon which most everyone seemed to agree.

First, there was a generally consistent consensus that American world leadership was both important for America’s interests and for the international community. Under Trump, and under Obama before him, the United States has undergone a period of diminishing national stature and a retreat from global leadership and relevance. Through a slow but steady surrender of our role as the leader of the free world, a vast power vacuum has been created and is being filled by actors and nations who are hostile to America’s interests and to the ideals of freedom and liberty.

While “nation-building” and military adventurism are mistakes we need not repeat, neither should the United States abdicate its unique place among nations as the “shining city on a hill.” Nor should we shrink from protecting our interests, insuring peace and stability, and standing for our principles and values abroad.

Second, while there was some disagreement on specific points, it was generally agreed upon that fiscal conservatism and free market capitalism need to be championed at a time when both major political parties are abandoning such precepts wholesale.

Obama led the country through the longest recession recovery the country has experienced and left the country debt-ridden and reliant on arbitrarily held low interest rates and deficit spending for economic stability.

And, instead of crafting policies and seeking a path towards stability and responsible fiscal policy, Trump has continued to “shoot Cocaine” into the veins of the American economy as he claims to be leading a spectacular and thriving economic moment in American history, all while running up historic deficits and passing tax cuts without addressing spending or soon to be insolvent entitlements.

As for the third and final plank of agreement, it can simply be stated that Bernie is a bridge too far for most of the conservatives at the summit. In fact, there seemed to be a general sentiment of concern that the Democratic Party was making the same mistakes and going the same route as the Republican Party in 2016.

While there may be a few outliers, and probably a few that might feel forced to make a difficult decision this fall, I can say with relative confidence that the vast majority of those who were in that room would be a vanguard for a principled, independent candidacy to challenge both political parties if Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee.

But, There Be Pirates

In Heath’s opening remarks he declared that the summit was not going to be “The Never Trump Summit.” While I wouldn’t say the summit failed to accomplish this goal, neither can I say it fully succeeded.

There were more than a few times when the panels devolved into an airing of grievances, angry diatribes, and bomb throwing. The room unfortunately, at times, did constitute some free real estate for Trump Holdings LLC as the president’s omnipresent specter played on the anxieties of those present.

My specific observation is that if this effort is going to go anywhere, we need fewer pirates throwing bombs and more patriots offering olive branches. For however much hostility there is toward Trump’s supporters and towards Republican politicians who have acquiesced to the Trumpian zeitgeist, there is no relevant conservative movement without an armistice and general pardon in the post-Trump future.

Perhaps the most cringe-worthy moment of the summit was Rick Wilson’s “F--- your feelings” response to a question about a CNN appearance where he called Trump supporters “credulous boomer rubes.”

I have a lot of admiration for Rick Wilson, but I’ll be frank. This isn’t the messaging of principled conservativism, but one that constitutes the petulant anger of irrelevance. And I’m not sure what it accomplishes other than creating sound bites our detractors can use to misrepresent the true purpose and feeling of such gatherings, and further alienate the base of support we need to actually make a difference.

Is Principles First About First Principles?

The title of this section is a note I jotted down on a piece of paper at one point in the summit and underlined twice. It constitutes an open question, and one that I hope can inform us as we move forward.

I mentioned earlier that there was excellent discussion about fiscal policy and foreign policy. However, there were many very important issues, issues that constitute important planks of any conservative platform, that failed to receive any discussion.

Putting myself in the shoes of a passive observer, I might wonder why a Summit on Principled Conservatism failed to discuss abortion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the importance of the nuclear family, freedom of religion, immigration policy, or significant entitlement reform.

And the failure to discuss these issues was punctuated by the absence of principled conservatives who might have discussed them, such as David French, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, Jim Geraghty, and Alexandra DeSanctis.

I also noticed there was a lot of talk on the panels about “evolving conservatism” and this idea of “zombie Reaganism.” It seems to me that there was a significant portion of the panelists and attendees who represent the more moderate portion of the pre-Trump GOP and who harbor a lot of resentment towards Trumpism for thwarting the evolution they felt needed to occur in conservatism as part of the 2012 Postmortem.

This stands in contrast with conservatives such as myself whose focus is on reasserting first principles in an age of unmoored ideology. As someone who has found solace in rediscovering the classical liberal tenets of Locke, Jefferson, Madison, and Hayek as well as the foundations of modern conservatism laid down by Goldwater, Buckley, Kristol, and Friedman, I am more than a little concerned when Reaganism, which is a relatively recent aspect of the American story, is considered a dead or dying policy framework.

Finally, I talked to both Evan and Heath about the loss of the Cold War brotherhood between modern conservatives and classical liberals (libertarians) and how the loss of that alliance has unmoored both of those movements. I mentioned I often feel like the last fusionist standing. I voiced my hope that we could be sure to really focus on broadening our coalitional efforts and finding ways to both bring in reasonable minds from the liberty movement and those looking for an off-ramp from Trumpism.

Learning How to Be Inclusive

The final panel of the day was thought-provoking and interesting. However, it was raw and risked going overboard. I had quite a few attendees tell me after the summit that had the final panel been switched with the first panel, they may have lost the audience.

The theme of the panel was the need for conservatism to be more inclusive and involved admonitions to “make conservatism sexy” and to adopt aspects of the Left’s identity politics.

While excellent points were made, some of the discussion came off as preachy, and included a chiding of the audience for being so white. We were told to reach out to the gay community, to pro-choice activists, to ethnic minorities, and to craft a conservatism palatable to these subsections of society.

Now, I agree with the premise of all of this. The conservative movement, and the Republican Party if it is to be the vessel for principled conservatism in the future, must be more inclusive. But, it’s going to have to be an inclusiveness that is conservative and one that has far more intellectual depth than simply race, skin-color, or gender orientation.

Of particular importance is recognizing that the identity politics of the Left has played a big part in the dysfunction of our society. We need to tear down walls, not build them up and that goes for more than just a proposed wall at the border.

Every time the Left has pushed the button of black identity politics, Hispanic identity politics, or LGBT identity politics it has simultaneously created space for the rise of white identity politics and a backlash from those who are told to be ashamed of their heritage or silent with their traditional beliefs.

If our inclusiveness simply mimics that of the Left, we will only compound the social anxieties that created Trumpism, we will not be able to build a relevant principled conservatism.

Instead, I believe we can find a path towards inclusiveness that involves treating everyone with human dignity and resisting the urge to put people in boxes. It also involves looking at inclusiveness as a complicated intersection of culture, belief, and ideology that transcends the arbitrary boundaries of society. There is nothing about race, skin color, or gender that makes anyone more disposed or less disposed to being conservative.

While there are portions of the conservative movement as it presently stands that needs to be excised (racism, xenophobia, white nationalism) and while many of the traditional messengers have crafted the conservative argument poorly or simply failed to even reach out to certain communities, I don’t see why the conservative message or the foundations of our principles would ever need to be changed, altered, or evolved.

Final Thoughts

I have been as frank and honest as possible, not because I am a naysayer or a pessimist, but because I really believe in the spirit of this summit and I want it to succeed. This country needs a principled conservative movement. It needs a base of power that understands the importance of our founding principles and can craft solutions for the future without betraying those principles. I want the people I was blessed to rub shoulders with last weekend to be the leaders of tomorrow.

I hope none of my concerns were taken as a message that I didn’t enjoy the summit or that I thought it was a failure. On the contrary, it was a tremendous experience and I think it was a smashing success. But it is only a foundation and we have to keep pressing if we’re going to grow and gain relevance.

As a parting hope, I’d like to suggest that we not wait until a year from now to do this again. Specifically, I’d like to suggest the idea of regional summits. As a necessarily coalitional effort, there’s going to be great value in learning and recognizing how different principled conservatism is going to look in different parts of the country. Speaking personally, I’d love to see a summit here in Salt Lake City, call it the “Crossroads at the Crossroads” Summit on Principled Conservatism.