Last week, I shared what I thought was an honest assessment of America's political right, an analysis from Commentary magazine chock full of pragmatic, yet principled prescriptions for the restoration of the Republican Party. Today brings us another realistic JLcritique of movement conservatism, courtesy of First Things' editor, R. R. Reno.

Reno begins with a sobering summation of the American political scene: Liberals dominate the narrative. Not because their ideas are necessarily good ones, but because "conservatives largely don’t have ideas, or at least not ones that can animate national campaigns."

Reno's opinion seems to be one substantiated by history. Despite the limitations of many of their candidates, the Republican Party dismal performance in our nation's last election cycle was indicative of empty rhetoric and an unwillingness to address substantial concerns of the American public. Liberals may be completely wrong about how to go about changing the status quo, but at least they recognize a change is needed.

In his piece, Reno addresses three areas that illustrate his main point: foreign policy, the economy, and social issues. His assessments and advice are marked by a refreshing realism that is so rarely found on the right. In fact, that I'm highlighting such a piece is an indication that honest introspection is the exception for the conservative movement, and not the norm.

On foreign policy, Reno makes a blunt assertion that Republicans and conservatives desperately need to hear: "American greatness" is not a foreign policy, but a sentiment. American power and influence abroad is clearly dwindling. But instead of realistically dealing with the evident decline of American hegemony, the right is bent on maintaining standard cliches of "exceptionalism," and attacking President Obama for his "supposed lack of commitment to American greatness." A sober assessment of both America's interests and capabilities in the international realm, devoid of delusions of supremacy and grandeur, is the best way forward for conservatives.

Reno applies a similar treatment to economics. Acknowledging the benefits, but also the negative ramifications of a globalized economy, he gives credit where credit is due: liberals have a coherent set of policies that would at least address the glaring inequalities created by capitalism. His assessment of the conservative response (or lack thereof) is less than flattering:

Romney ran on economic freedom: More entrepreneurs lead to more jobs. True, perhaps, but that’s a theory about economic growth in the long run, not tomorrow. Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, and others have been pushing for a robust set of tax subsidies and programs to support middle-class families, but they go unheeded. That’s because these ideas violate the anti-government commitments that are so powerful on the right today.

Spot on. When it comes to the economy, too many right-wingers seem to be living in some Randian dreamworld disconnected from reality. As a result, they dismiss half the nation's population as greedy people who "want stuff," while ignoring the growing and grotesque disparity of wealth in this country.

With regards to social issues, Reno makes a similar point. Obama and company may have the fundamentally wrong idea about what marriage and the family should like, but at least they're able to pair their progressive vision with policies that advance their cause. Conservatives, on the other hand, have a penchant for denouncing any and all changes, while being unable to articulate their own idea of what a traditional, functional society should look like, and why good marriages and solid families are critical to such a reality.

According to Reno, the conservative coalition's deficiencies in these areas are attributable to the fact that they've confused means with ends. He says:

The diminishment of modern American conservatism has come about as the Reagan coalition focused on limiting the size of government: taxing and spending. This is indeed a means for limiting government, but it is not the end itself. For example, the regulatory function of government is very inexpensive to fund, requiring little in the way of direct taxation, and yet it can, and in many ways has, become a Leviathan.

Similarly:
American conservatives need to return to first principles. Tax rates are not irrelevant. Restraining government spending may be good policy (and a fiscal necessity). But our goal is limited government, not limited taxation. The sign of success is a free people capable of self-government, not government spending as a certain percentage of GDP.

Reno's vision for the future of movement conservatism is realistic and oriented towards addressing today's issues in an effective way. Yet it's also one that is grounded in traditional values. And, as stated before, it demonstrates a willingness to address the right's current malaise in a manner that is almost altogether absent from the dominant voices of the right wing establishment. From FoxNews to Townhall, Malkin to Rush, conservative pundits and news outlets are too focused on denying deficiencies and projecting blame on their partisan counterparts. Like a cat to water, they have a deep-seated aversion to engaging in honest self-criticism, preferring instead to retreat into their echo chambers. Ignorance may not be bliss, but it's a lot less painful than cognitive dissonance.

Conservatives need fewer self-congratulatory sound-bytes and more substantive analysis, grounded in principled realism. Although few and far between, such voices are out there. Douthat and DreherFirst Things and the Public Discoursethese are the sources those concerned with traditional values and the common good should seek out. Their assessment of things may at times be less than rosy, and the solutions they advise may be more difficult than maintaining the status quo. But if there's any hope for a revitalization of authentic conservatism, these are the voices that must inform the right.