Since 2016, there’s been only one question: Which pull of the trigger will prove fatal for the “conservative realignment” in this precarious game of political roulette? Impeachment? War with Iran? The Rise (and fall) of Bernie Sanders? And now, the Chinese coronavirus?

In nearly every instance, various ideological factions within the conservative coalition attempt to prove their relevance by explaining how the present crisis validates their assumptions about the meaning of conservatism and prescriptions for the future of the right. And while most of these hot takes are nothing more than exercises in futility, occasionally, one of them sticks. So, with a spirit of pandemic-induced humility, I’ll throw my hat in the ring in hopes that, for your sake, my musings prove slightly more utile than futile.

What does the coronavirus mean for conservatism? Does the coronavirus provide the opportunity for a new fusionism on the right? Can the pandemic serve as the glue for a new or revitalized “three-legged stool” uniting disparate factions of conservatives?

Judging by the past three weeks, what has emerged in the domain of public policy is quite astonishing:

• Martial Law (OK, we’re not quite there yet, but it’s not so far-fetched.)
• Deregulation
• Decoupling from China; Bombing Iranian-backed militias
• Social Distancing

Well, if you look at these four things while squinting you might just conclude that the integralists and libertarians decided to call a truce and make a baby—after all, there are rumors of a coming baby boom now that everyone is stuck inside for spring!

Not so fast. Catholic churches across America have closed their doors (during Lent, no less), and Congress just passed a $2 trillion spending bill (with bailouts for Boeing?). That doesn’t sound like a lib-trad regime to me. Maybe the integralist/libertarian love affair was more of a one-night stand?

Some boast that there are no libertarians in a pandemic. Others reply that there are only libertarians in a pandemic. Some relish the opportunity for Trump, like Lincoln, to become a wartime president. Others fear that policies enacted in times of war seldom roll back in times of peace. Some see the lock-down as an opportunity to jump-start innovation and rethink old patterns of work/family life. Others question whether social distancing and quarantine could kill civil society and increase economic concentration. Will Wall Street finally deal a fatal blow to Main Street? Is Andrew Yang’s UBI here to stay?! As our late publisher Jon Utley used to say, “etc., etc., etc.”

At the end of the day, like much of the Trump era, there is enough here for every player to go home with a trophy, but not enough for any one faction to claim victory.

Yet, despite all the mess, there are a few lessons for conservatives to draw moving forward:

• The $6 trillion that the United States has spent since 2002 in the Middle East would have been much better invested at home. The costs of maintaining our permanent presence in the Middle East is no longer sustainable, especially in a time of pandemic, and we have a duty to put the needs of American citizens above our idealistic ambitions to make the world safe for democracy.
• We didn’t think through the national security implications of offshoring vital industries to China. While trade and cooperation between sovereign nations provides many benefits, our political independence depends on maintaining a certain degree of economic independence for essential, particularly military and medical supplies. The pandemic provides an opportunity to map out the genealogy of our supply chains and prudentially determine what needs to be made in America.
• In times of global crisis, the nation state is more reliable than supranational institutions. When Italy attempted to get aid from other members of the European Union to fight the pandemic, they were left to fend for themselves. Citizens have duties to each other that they don’t owe to the rest of the world. While we all share a common humanity, we should only count on our fellow countryman to have our backs in a time of global crisis. This underscores the right of every nation to secure its borders and enact immigration policies based on national interests and the common good of its people.
• Families, churches, and voluntary organizations are the first line of defense during a national emergency. While Congress spent the past week debating whether or not they should include bailouts for Big Business in the stimulus bill, local institutions and small businesses sprang into action to provide for the needs of their communities. Americans don’t wait for orders from the federal government before helping their neighbors. While federalism may be down, it’s certainly not out. There is more of that old Tocquevillian spirit left in America than many pundits give us credit for.

While these takeaways provide something of a blueprint for conservatives thinking about a new policy agenda, there is still a giant, $2 trillion (or $6 trillion if you add the Fed’s monetary assistance) elephant in the room—national emergencies demand national solutions. And national solutions are prone to become part of an unwritten constitution that informs people’s expectations about government for generations to come. In public school I was taught that FDR’s New Deal saved America from the Great Depression. What will our children be taught about Trump’s coronavirus relief bill that will cost over three times that of the New Deal programs in inflation adjusted dollars?

I pose this question as someone who is supportive of direct cash payments to working families, if not skeptical of the bailouts for major industries. But as my colleague, Curt Mills, aptly put it, “it’s perhaps no time to quibble with the patient’s drug habit while she’s bleeding out on the table.” Nevertheless, such action in times of emergency—necessary though it may be—inevitably centralizes and nationalizes political life for years to come. Which reminds me of an admonition penned by Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to he wrote to his brother in 1954:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this—in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it.

And taking decisive action to fight the coronavirus certainly seems like one of those cases where a majority of Americans agree that the federal government should do something to stop the spread of the pandemic, even if there’s no guarantee that anything will be enough to stop the bleeding.

The stakes are even higher because it’s an election year. For those interested in gaining or maintaining political power, which is almost everyone in Washington, Eisenhower’s concluding advice may be of even greater relevance:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things…Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Again, I ask the question, “What does the coronavirus mean for the future of conservatism?” I don’t know, but I like Ike.