Lord help me. I just went out for a short drive and made the mistake of turning on Laura Ingraham. Rarely have I heard such biased vitriol directed against anyone as she directed towards John McCain this morning.

(To think that I imagined things might calm down!)

Now, she obviously defines conservatism as agreeing with her. I don't know what conservatism is, but to Ingraham, McCain's 82% ACU rating obviously isn't that. All I know is that if I thought conservatism meant agreeing with the views of Laura Ingraham, I'd know that I am definitely not a conservative, and I'd know that I did not like conservatism.

Perhaps it is unfair of me to judge conservatism as meaning agreement with Laura Ingraham. Or is it? They want the label to apply only to themselves; should they get it?

(Far be it from me to defend to the death the definition of a label to which I do not aspire.)

This goes beyond Ingraham, who is by no means alone , so I'm forced to ask, what is conservatism? Obviously, they think it means something. But what? According to what Laura Ingraham just said, the recently promoted Mike Huckabee and her favorite Mitt Romney are conservatives, but McCain is not, never has been, and never will be a conservative, no matter what he ever says or does.

I have a lot of questions.

Is Mike Huckabee a conservative?

How does his conservatism compare with McCain's?

Is this really a war over the definition of conservative? Or has McCain simply become a scapegoat for angry right wing rage? Or both?

Are they mad at their party for not agreeing with them? Or are they mad at America for not agreeing with them? (Seriously, if the right wing can't win the Republican primary, how on earth can it hope to win in the general election?)

The problem with trying to define conservatism is that there are innumerable definitions, species, and sub-types -- so many that the definition is out of control.

As there is no reliable definition of conservative or conservatism, I'd like to propose returning to the roots, and defining it according to the traditional dictionary definition.

Defining conservatism in such a conservative manner may sound radical, but I don't know what else to do. Besides, everyone is defining conservatism, so I thought, hey, why not use the dictionary -- at least for entertainment purposes?

So without further adieu, here's the definition of what should probably be called "Webster Conservatism":

Back to basics!

(Who'd have thought that Webster's Dictionary could be a source of satire?)

MORE: Do not miss John Podhoretz's "Why They Hate McCain." According to Podhoretz, McCain has made enemies not because he isn't a conservative, but because he just refuses to follow the political tactics of conservative ideologues. This, says Podhoretz, confuses "ideological convictions with political tactics, and infus[es] a disagreement on how to approach problems with a moral edge it does not deserve":

...McCain likes to make common cause with politicians across the aisle from him. They can't stand this. They prefer someone who fights Democrats to someone who makes deals with Democrats. Fair enough. But this is a difference of degree, not of essence. McCain is a deal-maker. Perhaps, having engaged with a real enemy who broke his arms and tortured him and sought to destroy him body and mind and soul, he doesn't see an enemy when he sees a Democrat but rather just another American whose ideas on many things differ from his but with whom he might share some common ground.

McCain would, there is no question, be a lousy leader of an ideological movement. But the Republican party is not an ideological movement. It is a political vehicle for the American right-of-center. Those who confuse the Republican party with the conservative movement are indulging in a fantasy -- that there is purity in politics and that there is something immoral about ideological impurity.

Confusing tactics with ideology is both a tactical and an ideological mistake.

MORE: If Ilya Somin is right, a McCain administration would mean gridlock:

John McCain will now almost certainly become the Republican nominee for president. Therefore, we will be hearing more about the longstanding issue of conservative distrust towards him. I think that that distrust has an important upside that has been overlooked: it will make it more difficult for McCain to promote major new expansions of government should he become president.

No major new expansions? Sounds like Webster conservatism to me.

Perhaps the Republican Party could rebadge itself as the loyal opposition.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds links some excellent analyses of the Republican Purity issue. Hugh Hewitt sounds conciliatory, and sees a need "to strike some common chords again and again, beginning with why the GOP needs to retain the White House, regardless of who its nominee is."

John Hinderaker (anything but a McCain supporter) thinks things have gone way too far:

To assert, as some have, that there is "really" no difference between McCain (average ADA rating from 2002 through 2006 of 23%) and Hillary Clinton (average ADA rating over the same period of 96%) is the kind of never-mind-the-facts shrillness that we expect from the Left, not from our fellow conservatives.

John McCain will not be a perfect Presidential nominee. Then again, we didn't have any perfect candidates this year. (Funny how often that seems to happen.) How odd, though, for conservatives, of all people, to be the ones to hold out for perfection in human affairs. And despite his flaws as a candidate, John McCain has at least one major strength: he might actually win.

(I disagree with Dan Riehl, but as I explained before, I respect that everyone has his limits in terms of lines that cannot be crossed -- including me.)

Finally, don't miss Roger L. Simon on the purity issue:

Speaking bluntly, it may be that the search for ideological purity anywhere on the political spectrum is a fool's game (unless you're trying to sell books or drive ratings). Anyway, it's clear from Tuesday's returns the Republican electorate isn't buying it. Across much of the country, the man advertising himself as the perfect conservative ran a poor third to a "maverick" Republican and a Southern populist. And that purist of purists, Ron Paul, simply disappeared from view.

Of course, this pure conservative (Romney) may not have been the best standard-bearer for conservatism. Indeed, there is an argument to be made that he was a notably bad one (a long history of flip-flops).

But that should only prove my point about purists. No one is good enough for them...

I've never known a pure person in my life, and I don't think there is such a thing.

(Well, depending on your religious views, there might have been one a couple of thousand years ago.)

UPDATE: Other than citing the dictionary, I never offered my own "purist" definition of conservatism. If I had my druthers, I'd go with the one Ronald Reagan once gave:

Reagan, in attempting to define conservativism, said: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

But do I have the right to insist it is the only definition, and that everyone better agree with me or else I'll pack it up and go home?

Sure. But that would be pretty foolish of me.

So what is it that makes these purists feel so much more, um, entitled?

MORE: Speaking of Ronald Reagan, do not miss Bill Whittle's comment here:

A political party is a series of personal compromises in order to achieve a goal unattainable by the perfect political party: one's own self. If McCain is the legal and lawfully selected nominee, and Republicans decide to walk away from their party in droves, what makes them think they will be able to count on those who, you know, actually went out and voted Republican either joyfully or through clenched teeth, in order to prevent The Deluge?

If your idea of any political party is one that means unlimited support for your personal values if your candidate is ascendant, while you in turn owe none to those you dislike or even disdain, you might be in for a surprise in future elections.

Speaking as a FredHead myself, I am bitterly disappointed that I did not even have the chance to vote for a man I admired, and am more distraught still to find myself in the position I now occupy. I see many, many worrisome things about John McCain, but being tough on terror and spending are not among them. We could do worse. Two names come to mind immediately.

Much is said about principles, and since I am not able elect anyone BY MYSELF I have entered into this pact with the group of people who I feel most comfortable with in terms of values. If they, as a body, choose a candidate who is not my first, second, third or fourth choice, then I can look to the Democrats. There I find views so antithetical to everything I believe that I realize there is indeed something to this idea of party loyalty.

And I cannot help but think that such a kind and practical man as Ronald Reagan would be amazed that his name was being invoked so frequently in order to insure that the most liberal, socialist, power-hungry statist in my living memory is elected. I'm glad he's not here to see this because if he knew the consequences of what was being done in his name, I believe it would kill the man.