This is an astute piece from the Claremont Institute on the future of conservatism. 

It is only natural to conclude that the left would be giddy at the prospect that conservatism may have "slipped back into the chaos and impotence that prevailed" before the rise of the modern right with William F. Buckley and the National Review as John Judis of the New Republic asserts.  The question is, however, do they have a real basis for getting that "warm and tingly" feeling that vanquishing conquerors must have gotten as they stood over the prone bodies of their opposition?

This article is ambiguous as to whether or not conservatism is destined to wander about in the political wilderness for decades as the newly empowered radical left merrily pushes its agenda to its only logical destination- the collapse of America under the weight of utopian, consequences be damned individualism.

"In the American context, our experiment in self-government is the precarious undertaking conservatives defend. Most experiments fail. America's astounding triumphs in the past do not guarantee perpetual success going forward. Whatever their differences about conservatism's foundations, conservatives agree that defending the American experiment more often requires opposing than accommodating liberalism.

The danger liberalism poses to the American experiment comes from its disposition to deplete rather than replenish the capital required for self-government."

This quote is completely in line with arguments I have made previously regarding the necessity for cultural renewal in order to remain vibrant enough to withstand the challenges confronting us as a nation.  Contemporary liberalism deplinishes the reservoir of will that makes it possible to stand up and deal with the dangers and complexities of modernity.

The debate within conservatism between "traditionalists" and "reformers" and any other sub groups must be robust, but also must be quick.  We do not have time to attend a multitude of seminars on how to rediscover what we are for.  We must begin articulating that very soon or risk being washed away by the remorseless tide of history.

Conservatism, as I have said before, is about pragmatism in the face of radicalism and about respect for the past vs. its casual dismissal as being irrelevant to the ever change course of the future.  Indeed, conservatism can be progressive, but progressive within the bounds of what human nature tolerates.  The sin of modern liberalism is that it thinks it knows no boundaries even when those boundaries starkly stare it in the face.

Its our job to highlight this and usher in real hope, not delusions and pious morality hollowed by a lack of connection to any sense of Truth.