In the Face of Naked Bolshevism, Remember History’s Conservatives!

“I say a prince should rather be slow to take action and should watch that he does not come to be afraid of his own shadow.”

These are the words of Sir Francis Walsingham to the queen in the film rendition of Elizabeth’s rise to power, Elizabeth, as she is surrounded by advisors offering conflicting views about how she should manage Scotland. Her reign, in which she liberalized the church, was nevertheless marked by conservatism. Slow to take action and unafraid of the people in her train, she preserved many aspects of Catholic worship while revising the common prayer book and established a uniformity that honored symbolism and made faith a state concern by bringing the church under the authority of the monarch. So much for the young man who says: “I can do whatever I want.”

“I am a Berliner,” John F. Kennedy declared to the German people, who were struggling under a reputation for violence they did not deserve, bequeathed to them by a minority clever enough to gain power for a time and wreak havoc that would reverberate for decades, known today as the Nazi legacy of atrocity. What could be more conservative than speaking words of love to restore dignity to a European family haunted by bad relations? Is it possible to be both a conservative and a democrat who also happens to be a Christian? I certainly hope so.

Known to some as a neoliberal, Margaret Thatcher has also been celebrated for her conservatism. “What steps are you going to take to pursue your freedom?” she asked the Polish leaders of the Solidarity movement. For Thatcher, it was all about steps – again not reckless action which leads to a closet full of ghosts. She handled Soviet Russia by standing her ground. The Cold War ended, leaving the west and the rest of the world with an open ending and a host of unanswered questions which as of today have not yet been resolved. The international scene today is an exhibition of stepping and side-stepping.

To be beloved as a conservative is many people’s dream. To be known as a Christian no less so. As I process the feud that I have witnessed in my community over public library content and public library regulation, these past two years, I often find myself asking God in my prayers: who is the conservative here? And on some level, I am wondering: who is the Christian? It seems neither conservative nor Christian to me to overhaul a two-hundred-fifty-year-old institution to suit a political preference, even under the last-minute exigency of being apparently concerned with financial integrity. The first thing a young person should learn is that we’re at war and utopia is impossible. Anyone who promotes radical change in the pursuit of perfection should be viewed as the serpent in the garden. The four-person Board of Supervisors majority and the human network they represent are not the first political actors in history to take this approach.

In 1917, the Bolsheviks promised perfection to the Russian people. The price? Radical change. They overhauled a tradition rooted in a family to bring about a coup-d’etat that paved the way for some of the grossest human rights violations in history. In a microcosm, that is what is happening in Front Royal and the larger Warren County with this disagreement over Samuels Public Library. So what if the library administration has made mistakes in its financial conduct? Any human organization inevitably will make mistakes! As for the lingering ghost of LGBTQIA+, if a child is old enough to read, then he is old enough to know about sex, and he is old enough to be acquainted with what some may call sex pathology. But the serious conversation parents could have with their children over disturbing literature is not the real issue; the offensive material is a red herring and that red herring has been the basis for a power play. The urge to purge is not conservative, it is certainly not Christian, and it will inevitably lead to further conflict.

What remains of a thirty-year lease is facing a potential abortion as alternative management hovers in the wings. That is what Bolshevism does: it bypasses constitutionalism and then proceeds to appeal to mass hysteria. This only leads to grief. And with the hindsight that time affords, it sometimes looks like the abortion was the whole point.

Brenden McHugh
Front Royal, VA

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The Royal Examiner has not independently verified the statements and claims presented in the letters. Readers are encouraged to exercise their judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish diverse opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or any other form.

We value our readers’ engagement and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.