DONALD DEVINEnAsking what is wrong with the conservative coalition isnputting last things first. There cannot be a coalitionnunless there is something around which it coalesces. Andnthere is no “there” there for a conservative coalition.nThere is no center. Yes, there are millions who holdnconservative values, and there are scores of organizations,nperhaps hundreds. But there is no sense of a team, nonmovement, no elan, no leader, no feeling that we must pullntogether, not even a conservative community.nThere are leaders, but thousands of them, all leading inndifferent directions, not one who could really lead somewhere.nIt is entrepreneurial individualism run amuck, and Inam as guilty as any. For to establish real individualism egonmust be superseded by a sense of community, and institutionsnmust be created that channel self-interest. Without realnleaders who can also follow, no movement can exist.nIf a national test were given, even just to the leaders, itnwould be impossible to obtain a coherent one-sentencendefinition of conservatism. At best, there would be libertarian,ntradihonalist, paleo, neo, internationalist, isolationist,nfree-enterprise, establishmentarian hyphenated-conservatismsnin an impenetrable confusion.nNo movement in any coherent sense of the term can takenform in Babel. In the past, there was a movement aroundnthe definition of “libertarian means in a conservative societynfor traditionalist ends,” but it barely exists today. There wasnan initial leader, William F. Buckley, Jr., and then BarrynGoldwater and then Ronald Reagan; but now there is none.nThere was a movement that sacrificed to common goals, ifnnot in a single organization, in a few that cooperated withneach other, but not anymore.nTo a great extent, the original core conservative movement,nwas a vicfim of its success in creating an electoralncoalition around itself. A coalition, by definition, is composednof diverse elements that share only a few commonngoals. The worst thing conservatives could do today wouldnbe to try to build a coalition before it recreates a centernaround which a coalition could form.n22/CHRONICLESnReluctant Residentnby John Nixon, Jr.nAs a rule, I don’t exist.nWhen I think of wars I’ve missednAnd subterranean upheavalsnAnd plagues of frogs and plagues of weevils.nBy simply being not amongnThose present, I could sing a songnOf ecstasy and wild thanksgivingnThat, as a rule, I’m just not living.nnnA coalition without a core is vacuous. It is modernninterest-group liberalism under a different label. It is thenbuddy-buddyism of country-club Republicanism withoutnthe noblesse oblige. It is another amalgam of devouringnpressure lobbies that cannot raise bold colors under whichnhonest men and women can march.nSo first things first. Conservative leaders must begin thendifficult task of submerging some realistic part of self— andnat least some of the comfortable and flattering access theynhold in Washington — to a higher vision. They must agreenupon a definition of the conservative vision of the commonngood (which necessarily has an individualistic tinge) and setnsubordinate interests in their proper place, even if thisnappears too radical to those in the seat of power. Only afternthis demanding effort can moral courage wrest from Babel ancore conservatism worthy of popular support from which angoverning coalition can be formed.nA conservative reformation need not start from scratch.nWhy not begin from the period that successfully launchednthe movement the first time? Start with the definition ofnlibertarian means in a conservative society for traditionalistnends. Flesh this out with the I960 conservative movementncredo, the Sharon Statement, which listed the essentialnelements as then understood — individual freedom, Godgivennso not rightfully limited by arbitrary human force;nnational government restrictions on that freedom only fornnational defense, internal order, and the administration ofnjustice; a foreign policy judged by the criterion, “does itnserve the just interests of the United States?”; a Constitutionnappreciated for the genius it showed in reserving the powersnnot specifically delegated to the nation as problems for thenstates or the people; and a free market, because only it isncompatible with individual freedom, constitutional government,nand the sahsfaction of peoples’ needs for goods andnthe rewards of work.nTradition, freedom, limited domestic and foreign government,norder, federalism, and free markets — these constitutednthe originally successful formula. By all means change ornadd to them if they no longer make sense; but it is time tonstop grumbling and blaming Ceorge Bush, and solve thenreal problem — reforming ourselves, even if it means beginningnall over again.nDonald Devine is president of a management consultingnfirm in Alexandria, Virginia.n