This is a fair point, though I have got to ask--is conservatism really about hope? I know about Ronald Reagan's spin on conservatism, but I've always seen him as kind of sui generis. Most of the conservatives that I've known, and most of the stuff I've read about conservatism since Goldwater, has generally tended toward the resentment side of the equation. My thought experiment to prove this would be as follows: first off, try to name a grievance-centered conservative political leader from the past forty years. There are many from which to choose. Now, try to think of another hopeful conservative leader from the same time period. My mind draws a blank. Maybe George W. Bush? Then again, there is a difference between being hopeful for the future and just hoping things will turn out well. Bush does the latter.
In the abstract, of course, conservatism (in the Burkean sense) can definitely be hopeful and just seeks to preserve the institutions, traditions, etc., of a society. But American conservatism is anything but Burkean. Even before Goldwater it has consistently held that culture has been corrupted, that we face enormous external threats that we are now ill-equipped to handle, but it has never actually proposed solutions for those problems so we wind up getting bitter crankery about these problems that stick around so that the next generation of conservatives can bitch about them. How can we make progress if the same issues stick around one election cycle after another? But the Republicans won't just move on and accept progress in any number of areas. They keep the wounds open so that people will keep showing up to vote for them out of bitterness. The entire GOP cosmology, at this point, largely depends upon keeping the grievances of the 1960s, and their attendant bitterness, as the motivating factor for people to vote. How does hopefulness fit into a worldview where you keep fighting the same losing battles, and when many conservatives feel that teh liberals are simply too dastardly and powerful to lose?
