In the last few years, Republicans as a whole have abandoned the principles of Burkean conservatism. It has been said many times in the past few weeks, but a quick glance at what conservative pundits and bloggers seem to believe is the right course after Tuesday’s massive defeat, shows that they do not truly understand the lessons of 2008 and what they will have to do to take back Congress and, perhaps, the White House in 2012.

Too many conservatives seem to believe that conservatism means one has to be reactionary. They focus on a past that never was, yet in their mind did exist once, and want to bring the past back.

This is, however, most definitely not what conservatism is about. Reactionary individuals want to create a utopian society based on a society that once existed. That society, however, will never come back and had its own problems that had to be solved.

Furthermore, the reactionary wing of the Republican Party seems to be unable to understand that change is necessary. Society changes, it evolves, just as human kind does, as does nature. Trying to stop change or to turn back changes is contrary to nature. This while conservatism is the most natural ideology possible, for it takes nature as it is, learns from history and nature, and uses those lessons to improve society today.

21st century conservatism should not focus on bringing back a past that never was – which means radical change, which is anathema to true conservatism. Instead, it should take society as it is now, and advocate slow and wise changes that would cure some (not all, for this is impossible) of society’s ills, while keeping its strenghts. This should be the thought behind the conservative movement in the coming years, individual policies should be based on it: an understanding that change is necessary, an understanding that quick radical change is destructive, so change should come slowly and deliberately, should guide all policy proposals put forth by conservative thinkers, activists and politicians.

The above means that conservatives will have to accept that increasingly more Americans expect the government to help improve society. The rather libertarian motto of the past, that “government is the problem,” will no longer work. Society has changed, as have the laws governing it. 20 and 25 years ago, it could rightfully be argued that government was standing in the way of individual freedom and individual success. Taxes were too high, individuals were unnaturally made equal by the government.

But that has changed after eight years of Reagan, four of George H.W. Bush, eight of his son George W. Bush and, yes, even eight years of Democrat Bill Clinton. Taxes are not overly high at this point, the government has deregulated considerably. No longer is government intervention the problem. The fact that conservatives have not accepted this new reality in the last two years has caused them to lose elections: it has become perfectly clear to the electorate that the problems that still exist can be solved by the government, not (in general terms) by less government.

Ever since Reagan, property rights were restored, limitations that hampered people’s ability to get ahead in live were removed. Conservatives have to adopt to this new reality, understanding that what brought them to power in 1980 is no more and, instead, come up with ways to build on the foundation they have laid in the last 28 years.

This means, for instance, that conservatives will have to tackle the health care problem in all earnestness. Many millions of Americans are not insured. Some not because they choose not to be insured, but many others because they cannot afford a health care insurance. Then there are many others who do have an insurance, but who are paying a ridiculously high amount every year to keep it. They literally pay thousands of dollars every year just so they can receive medical treatment when they need it. This is an unworkable situation, which demands a more influential role from the government.

However, too much change in too short a time may result in the American health care system losing its competitive edge with the rest of the world, and innovation in health care disappearing. This is what could very well happen when radical progressives are allowed to pursue health care reforms; as the Jacobin mind has always done, it will be more than willing to destroy the good along with the bad. Conservatives need to take a good, long look at the health care problem and its current strengths, and come up with a way to help cover those who are uninsured now and with ways to push down the costs of health care insurance.

With health care too there is room for improvement, in this case – this being the exception in the new reality – less government involvement in a way, may be effective. For instance, research shows that school vouchers, allowing students and their parents to choose a (private) school instead of going to the school the government tells them to go, improve private schools, public schools and the grades of the students themselves; both those who use the vouchers to go to a different school and those who attend the public school (of the government’s choice). This is for a large part due to competition.

But school vouchers could also create problems, as progressives have been more than willing to point out in recent years. Although they have exaggerated those problems simply because they oppose choice in this regard for ideological reasons, it is perfectly clear that changing the system so as to give parents and students more choice, may cause problems, especially for public schools (in inner cities). This means that school vouchers, etc. should be used on a bigger scale than they have thus far, but that conservatives should try to come up with a way to prevent public schools from collapsing, deteriorating, etc. This could very well require more government involvement and more funds in public schools. That is anathema to what many consider to ‘conservative,’ but it is, in fact, not: conservatism should, above all, be practical and realistic.

Foreign policy wise too, the ‘conservative’ movement will have to become practical and realistic. For years, conservatives advocated large scale military intervention in the war on terrorism, or Islamic extremism. Many seemed especially willing to embrace the notion that creating a democratic and stable Iraq would help ‘transform’ the entire Middle East.

Nice as that may sound, it is not exactly practical or realistic. Instead, conservatives’ foreign policy has become highly utopian in recent years: conservatism teaches that one cannot radically transform one’s own society (without causing more problems than one solves), yet conservative foreign policy has devolved into a highly utopian view for the rest of the world which does not take any of the lessons of history we have used for ourselves into account. The war in Iraq is a great example of this: it was a disastrous war, fought for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong goals. We, including myself, deceived ourselves into thinking that we could reshape Iraqi society on a scale we would consider impossible in the West. This was a mistake, and we should learn from it. We should now salvage whatever we can in Iraq, and limit the damage, protect our allies, and prevent the region from falling prey to massive chaos, violence and disorder, but no new adventures to transform other societies should be undertaken. Not now. Not ever.

And then there is government spending. Under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, the U.S. deficit grew to $10 trillion. That is ridiculous amount. All those who caused it cannot call themselves responsible conservatives in any way. Conservatives should, from now onwards, focus on responsible spending. If you would like to do something but have to borrow money to pay for it, you cannot do it. It is that simple. When you would like to cut taxes you can do so, but you will have to cut expanses as well. If you are not willing to do so, you cannot cut taxes. Simple.

Conservatism is alive and well, and easy to revive: all American conservatives have to do is to go back to the true principles of conservatism, which are practical and realistic above all. Use these principles to formulate policies and you are on you are halfway at taking back Congress, and setting a course for America that is beneficial to society as a whole.