[Noh Dong-il Column] Can the 'Crushed Conservative Camp' Come Back to Life?

I first met Edwin Feulner, then chairman of The Heritage Foundation, in 1997. During the presidential race that year, I had the chance to sit in on a meeting between him and one of the major presidential contenders. He never lost his gentle smile, yet his questions to the candidate were as sharp as any reporter’s interview. Although known as a Korea-friendly figure, it felt like he was conducting an interview to find out which Korean candidate would best serve U.S. national interests. Before his death in 2025, he visited Korea more than 200 times and maintained ties with presidents across the political spectrum. He was especially close to former president Kim Dae-jung and, in recognition of his contribution to strengthening Korea–U.S. relations, received the Gwanghwa Medal of the Order of Diplomatic Service Merit in 2002.
When Edwin Feulner founded The Heritage Foundation in 1973, he set out to build an "action-oriented think tank" that would translate conservative values into policy. He believed American conservatism was in deep crisis. After President Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal and resignation, and President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon, the Republican Party (GOP) had fallen into disarray. Just as serious as its moral and political bankruptcy was the vacuum in policy. With the Democratic Party of the United States (Democratic Party) controlling both the White House and Congress, the conservative camp failed to present concrete, workable policy alternatives.
To overcome this "crisis of American conservatism" born of ideological isolation and policy paralysis, The Heritage Foundation defined small government, individual liberty, economic freedom, protection of tradition, and a strong national defense as the core standards of conservatism. In 1980 it released a 1,093-page policy blueprint titled "Mandate for Leadership." The document clearly redefined what "conservatism" meant and laid out detailed policy proposals for when the Republican Party took power. Rather than stopping at slogans like "conservative values are the key to national prosperity," it developed specific policies such as tax cuts, deregulation, reductions in welfare spending, and a strong-defense, strong-economy line. It also crafted policies to defend American traditions, including family values, arguing that "progressive left-wing movements such as gay rights and abortion are corrupting society." To shed its stuffy image, the foundation organized voluntary study groups among college students and began expanding conservatism’s reach on campuses.
Ronald Wilson Reagan’s victory in the 1980 presidential election was the product of these efforts. In practice, Reaganomics, grounded in Mandate for Leadership, played a central role in restoring U.S. competitiveness after the oil shock and the resulting stagflation. The policy of strengthening national defense contributed to the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), elevating the United States to the position of the world’s sole superpower. There was no special magic behind the revival of a conservative party once considered mired in a swamp and beyond rescue. Conservatives clarified their values and philosophy, then consistently refined policies based on them. For a party truly rooted in ideology and philosophy, this should be natural, yet they made their blurred identity far more distinct. Their strategy also resonated with younger voters: instead of the short-lived sweetness of cash handouts and expanded welfare offered by progressive parties, they argued that a conservative party pursuing individual freedom, a market economy, and economic freedom for businesses could offer youth more durable dreams and hope.
Former president Lee Myung-bak recently gave an interview to a domestic media outlet. In it, he urged the conservative opposition to first acknowledge that it has suffered a "crushing defeat." He used that term to encompass the historic rout in the 22nd general election in 2024, the impeachment of former president Yoon Suk Yeol and the subsequent presidential loss, and the ongoing, intense internal conflicts within the camp. Without thorough analysis and self-reflection on why conservatives were crushed, he warned, they are splitting over past issues such as their stance on Yoon, and "are engaged in a hopeless endeavor."
In disarray, beyond saving, shooting themselves in the foot, electoral wipeouts—these are just some of the phrases now used to describe the People Power Party (PPP). Even with local elections just ahead, it is floundering and unable to set a clear course. One does not need Lee Myung-bak to hear harsh words; anyone with a voice is already saying them. The party itself seems oblivious, but there is no need to add yet another insult. Still, if things continue as they are, there is little hope for conservatism, and the one-party dominance of the progressive camp would be unhealthy for the future of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). Candidate nominations, party leadership, and conventions are all secondary branches. Unless conservatives clearly reestablish their fundamental values and philosophy, no one knows how long the "lost years" will last. They should first study how American conservatism went through crisis and revival by looking at The Heritage Foundation and Edwin Feulner. In a media interview during his lifetime, Feulner stressed, "In politics there are always ups and downs in the cycle. But the tide eventually turns. In the end, what truly matters and endures are ideas and ideology." The waves will return someday. If conservatives fail to set right what is important and lasting in politics during that time, they will not even have the chance to ride the next wave when it comes.
dinoh7869@fnnews.com Reporter