By Alyssa Resar, Harvard Class of 2019
On February 22, Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson moderated a Forum at Harvard’s Institute of Politics about “The Future of the Conservative Agenda.” Before the Forum, I sat down with Soltis Anderson for an interview. Here are 5 key takeaways from our discussion:
1. It is an open question whether conservative politicians in the U.S. and abroad will be able to separate the traditionally conservative parts of populism from its more xenophobic aspects. Some facets of populism, in particular its tendency to privilege working class people over intellectual or political elites, align with traditional conservative values. It is difficult to tell, however, whether populism can be separated from its historical prejudice towards immigrants, people of color, and women. Soltis Anderson maintains that this question will likely remain unanswered for the time being.
2. Defining what “conservative” means is necessary to understanding what is meant by the “Conservative Agenda.” According to Soltis Anderson, “conservative” can either be defined as a commitment to limited government or as a temperament. If it is defined as a commitment to limited government, then current Republican policies, especially some of Trump’s less traditionally conservative ideas like increased infrastructure spending, could not be considered as part of the “Conservative Agenda.” However, because they are driven by Republican leaders, they could very well be defined as conservative policies and therefore would change the meaning of the “Conservative Agenda.”
3. On the other hand, “conservatism” can be defined as a temperament. Soltis Anderson associates conservatism with thumility, distrust in the ability of any one person or government to create a utopia, and a dedication to allowing people to freely make the decisions that affect their lives. With that definition, President Trump is not a conservative and may in fact be the opposite of one. Furthermore, this definition of conservative would not be as easily rebranded if Republicans proposed policies that were less traditionally conservative.
4. Millennial voters pose a problem to Republicans’ potential for victory in the future. Just over a third of voters age 18-24 voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, which was around the same number of people in that age range who voted for Obama in 2012. The difference, Soltis Anderson thinks, is that while Trump may have been a worse candidate than Mitt Romney in 2012, Clinton was also a much worse candidate than Obama in 2016, which means that number staying steady is not necessarily a good sign for Republicans. She believes that Republicans can cater more to millennial voters by focusing on economic growth.
5. In addition to the challenges that the millennial vote poses, Soltis Anderson believes that voters in their 30’s also may not vote for Republicans in the future. While voters in their 30’s have historically been middle ground voters or even conservative voters, she doesn’t see that trend necessarily continuing in the coming years. Moreover, she sees that voters who were 18, 19, and 20 during the Obama years may tend to be even more liberal in the future, potentially causing trouble for the Republican Party’s chances. Ultimately, Soltis Anderson again emphasized the necessity for Republicans to highlight the potential their economic policies have for a growth in which “everyone can partake in.”
Check out video of the full Forum below to hear more opinions about the future of the conservative agenda: