Trust in our institutions – religious, medical, educational, cultural, or governmental – has eroded significantly in the last century, especially in the last decade. Conservatives in particular lament the sad state of our institutions which they view as co-opted by forces hostile to the best interests of Americans. Marxist theorist Rudi Dutschke’s “long march through the institutions” has been a complete success, many conservatives believe, and we’re witnessing its poisonous fruits.

The rise of Donald Trump demonstrates this point. His ascent indicates American distrust of government and Washington insiders. Trump’s great appeal was his outsider status, his lack of institutional entrenchment, and the hope that he might actually bring about change in a system immobilized by bureaucracy and hollowed out by corruption.

In the face of institutional decay and a growing skepticism toward the “experts” in every field, American conservatives have a few options to consider. Some are so disgusted with our failed systems that they see them as beyond saving. Vehement (and often justified) criticism is levelled at these institutions, with the critics largely advocating abandoning them in favor of building conservative alternatives.

On the other hand, you have the conservatives who, like Batman in “The Dark Knight Rises,” believe Gotham isn’t past hope. These voices advocate for storming the bastions, a conservative “will-to-power,” a retaking of the institutions and the levers of power they provide.

Which approach is more likely to succeed? Both have their drawbacks and advantages. The flee-from-the-institutions approach appeals because it protects people from the negative influences at work within these institutions, the danger of getting sucked into the vortex we’re trying to eliminate. It also frees one from the frustrating business of trying to fix something broken, often with odds stacked against you – a process that can feel like trying to repair a broken river dam with duct tape.

At the same time, building alternative conservative institutions (like the conservative financial company ProLifeFintech or Jordan Peterson’s alternative to woke colleges, Peterson Academy) isn’t easy either, and it can be difficult to create something from scratch that possesses any significant cultural weight or influence. Further, as long as one’s opponents maintain control of the truly influential organizations, as long as they wield the power, they always have the option of essentially squashing the little conservative alternatives on the peripheries. Lastly, there’s something a bit selfish about falling back into little conservative enclaves and creating a private, alternative system. What about the rest of America? Do we just let it go to hell in a handbasket as long as we have our own comfortable oasis?

Yet attempting to recapture and reform institutions has risks, too. It’s a strong person who can, especially when outnumbered, change his environment rather than being changed by it. For someone operating in a liberal milieu, the temptation is always to simply succumb to peer pressure, to abandon oneself to the general drift of the current. And the process can even happen unconsciously as conservative values are worn down little by little. Further, without conservative alternatives to look to as models, it can be difficult for reformers to envision a better version of the institution they’re trying to fix.

In light of all this, I suspect that the right approach is a combination of both strategies, focusing on both reforming the time-honored institutions that already exist while also building innovative new models. This offers the best of both worlds.

The alternative institutions are necessary because every warrior needs a castle to retreat to, a safe place to rest and recuperate alongside like-minded folk. Further, reforming mainstream institutions is not a fast process, and in some cases, we need immediate options that can only be provided by the alternatives that conservatives create. In addition, the more effective these conservative alternatives become, the more they will draw support away from the existing institutions, creating something like a marketplace of institutions that breaks the existing liberal monopoly.

At the same time, conservatives cannot simply abandon our existing government, academia, medical system and the like to the enemies. To do so would be a radically unconservative thing. These time-honored institutions must be conserved because they matter and they have a tradition behind them, and that can happen through a firm belief in and commitment to their renewal. This is also part of how we serve our fellow citizens who continue to be influenced by these institutions. By seeking to “re-colonize” them, we can exert more direct influence on public policy and culture, thereby helping the entire country – not just other conservatives – to thrive.

Finally, mainstream and alternative institutions can exist in a symbiotic relationship. The alternative institutions provide small models and proving grounds for the efforts at reform within the larger existing institutions. What can be achieved on a small-scale in the alternative ecosystems can be replicated on a larger scale in the mainstream ecosystem.

I think the two approaches need not be mutually exclusive. “Run” vs. “rebuild” is a false dichotomy. To some extent, we can do both. And that will give us the best chance of overall success.

—

The republication of this article is made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image Credit: Picryl