(This is the third in a series of articles by faculty members on the significance of various aspects of the election.)

If the Republican party is to restore itself to its once proud position as the dominant national political organization, it must clarify its strategic ends and completely alter its tactical behavior. This has been recognized by some Republicans for a number of years. It is to be hoped that, in the light of November second's outcome, a majority of the faithful will see the necessity for action.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the party has been and probably must continue to be preponderantly conservative in bias. This is necessary because of its present composition based on strength in the northeastern middle class and the agricultural heartland of the midwest. Furthermore, it seems likely that a majority of Americans are themselves conservative in bias, so that true conservatism can be described as good politics in the long run. The Republican difficulty lies in having allied itself with a group of essentially stupid, uneducated conservatives who appear to believe that conservative values (which they themselves do not understand) can be preserved intact by a two-fold policy of mouthing archaic shibboleths long since devoid of real meaning ("A balanced budget"!, "free private enterprise"!) together with legislative obstruction of virtually all social legislation. This was well illustrated by the record of the 80th Congress. In that now infamous body conservative leaders did themselves and their conservative constituents a grave disservice by offering little more than a diet of empty cant and obstructive ugliness.

The so-called "liberal" Republicans are different from the Capeharts and the Brickers and the Greens and the Martins not because they are radicals, for they are nothing of the sort. From all we know of them, men like Aiken and Flanders of Vermont, Ives of New York, and Morse of Oregon are the true representatives of the basic American conservative tradition. They believe in the sanctity of the individual, his dignity and worth. They support both democracy and constitutionism. They entertain a continuing bias in favor of existing institutions, but they are prepared to keep open minds with regard to changes in institutions and government. Most important, they have learned that if the conservative values of human dignity, constitutionalism and private property are to be preserved then government, the Twentieth Century Leviathan, must be used as a positive instrument, not only in general but also in particular. Further, instead of trying to preserve an eighteenth century division of functions between the national and local governments they are prepared to experiment with new arrangements. If such attitudes constitute being a 'radical," then the conservative majority needs more such radicalism.

Men of this stripe have yet to articulate in compact, coherent fashion a conservative declaration of faith, and probably because of popular misconceptions concern- ing the meaning of conservatism, this is a job to be left to the professors. But their speeches and their votes indicate that they understand true conservatism and are prepared to work for it in practical ways--voting for extensions of social security, Federal aid to education, social development of natural resources. Instead of opposing all social legislation out of hand they are, most of them, always thinking up something new, using a new mechanism (i.e. the federal government) to preserve human values on the one hand and business enterprise on the other.

From such men (and a full list would be a very long one!) the Republicans can obtain the leadership necessary to recapture the country. But such a reconstitution of the party will require support from the rank and file. For example, if the new Republicans recognize publicly that Lord Keynes advanced some suggestions of great utility in managing a mid-twentieth century economy and if this outrages the archaic, provincial mind of Representative Martin, the outcome within the party may turn upon the reaction and behavior of the faithful. If they back politicians like Martin, giving him aid and comfort in cases such as this, then we are likely to remain out of power for a long time to come. If moves are made by G.O.P. leaders to strike hands with those despicable advocates of human enslavement from the south who are currently writhing in the consequences of their own miscalculations, the party will be faced with a reverse far more serious than the recent one on November second. And it will not be enough to disown these misguided reactionaries. We must give active support to our new leaders. We must provide them with votes, with ideas, with grass roots missionary zeal.

The Republicans were defeated but they are not beaten, and it is for each of us in the ranks to determine our own contributions to the necessary revival. If individually and collectively we display both energy and imagination in the four lean years ahead, then 1952 can in fact be the year of liberation from the selfish and unprincipled mediocrity of the present democratic rule. We lost in 1948 because we deserved nothing more than defeat. Now we have four years to mend our ways, to support new leaders and a new program of an articulate and creative party of enlightened twentieth century conservatism