Introduction: the Way Back

Introduction: The Way Back By the second year of his presidency, Abraham Lincoln should have been a demoralized man. Lincoln’s military command had stumbled badly through the opening stages of the Civil War. By 1862, the embattled president faced defi ance from his generals, failure from his armies, and hu- miliation across the globe. By spring, France and Britain were on the verge of recognizing the Confederacy. By summer, Robert E. Lee was chasing Union forces across the Potomac. The president’s army would be forced to make a hasty retreat to prepare for the defense of the nation’s capital. But at the end of that terrible year, Abraham Lincoln delivered a message to Congress that was as defi ant as it was determined. On December 1, 1862, that great man told Congress that history left them no choice but to preserve the American Union as the last best hope on earth. “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present,” Abraham Lincoln said. “The occasion is piled high with diffi culty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” 2 INTRODUCTION: THE WAY BACK As it was in Lincoln’s time, so it is in ours. American leaders do not face a nation divided by war or shamed by the institution of slavery. But as with every generation since 1776, we have no choice but to face the diffi cult occasion that is piled high before us and rise to that challenge. Our leaders cannot escape history any more than they can ensure our future unless they begin again to think anew. It is especially critical at this chapter in our nation’s history for conservatives to set aside the dogmas of the quiet past and instead explain their vision to a new generation. This book will lay out that vision. Our challenges are great, but they can be met by men and women of good faith who are guided by restraint and prudence instead of rabid, unyielding ideologies. It is time again for conservatives to lead America into the future. But before we fi gure out how to do that, let’s fi rst talk about how conservatism has been defi ned throughout our history. As we begin, let me ask you to set aside everything Americans think they know about what it means to be conservative. Forget that conservatives are now associated with military expansion, Wall Street recklessness, and ideological conformity. Instead, try to imagine that conservatism is not a political movement at all, but rather a guiding set of principles grounded in reality and restraint, and fl exible enough to sustain America through the next century. Moving forward, we must embrace our fi rst principles so that we can revive what Russell Kirk once called “the forgotten genius of conservatism.” British statesman Edmund Burke, the movement’s founder, gained international attention 200 years ago with his stinging cri- tique of the French Revolution. Burke and his followers championed customs and conventions that promoted social stability across the ages while declaring intel- lectual war against dogmas of all designs. It was, after all, rabid INTRODUCTION: THE WAY BACK 3 ideologues who very nearly torched Notre Dame and destroyed French civilization. Mr. Kirk summed up Burke’s distrust of dogma in his classic The Conservative Mind. “A terrestrial paradise cannot be contrived by metaphysical en- thusiasts; yet an earthly hell can be arranged readily enough by ideologues of one stamp or another.” William Buckley’s biographer, Sam Tanenhaus, believes that Burke would be shocked by modern conservatism. After all, the movement’s founder had a belief system that was not based on ideological guidelines but rather on his contempt for all ideologies. Conservatives, for the better part of the last 200 years, followed Burke’s lead by shunning rigid dogma and instead attaching themselves to reality, restraint, custom, and convention. But that approach is a far cry from where Republicans have ven- tured over the last generation. ANSWERING RADICALISM WITH RADICALISM For a quarter-century, we conservatives have allowed ourselves to be defi ned too easily as rigid ideologues, blindly faithful to an unyielding agenda. As a member of the 1994 Republican revolution, I plead guilty as charged. When conservatives stormed Capitol Hill that year, we sought nothing less than the dramatic transformation of Washington and America. We believed that the radicalism of the 1960s needed to be counterbalanced by radicalism from the right. I remember feeling elated as incoming GOP congressmen delivered one speech after another that endorsed “radical change.” We would seek nothing less than the destruction of the 1960s ethos and the man who most embodied that decade: Bill Clinton. 4 INTRODUCTION: THE WAY BACK Our drive for change led to a balanced budget, welfare reform, and the remaking of Congress as a political institution. But the way we fought those political battles also resulted in a government shutdown, bitter partisanship, and the impeachment of a president. More frustrating was the fact that our perceived extremism also helped reelect in 1996 the same President we ran against two years earlier. We had saved Bill Clinton from political death by coming across as radical to swing voters and making him again appear to be a moderating force in American politics. We had answered radicalism with radicalism, and the costs were high. Conservatives lost their bearings again after September 11. President Bush’s disciplined response in Afghanistan devolved over time into a foreign policy approach that guaranteed the U.S. military alone would end tyranny across the world. The Republican president’s second inaugural address contained utopian pronouncements so grand that they would have made Woodrow Wilson skittish. Once again, politicians who described themselves as conservatives answered radicalism with rigid dogma. And once again, the victories gained came at a terrible cost. My conclusions shouldn’t be seen as a criticism of George W. Bush, but rather a reminder to us all. Besides, it would be disin- genuous to suggest that I had been anything other than the most conservative of conservatives over the past 15 years. While in Congress, I • supported the government shutdown • criticized Newt Gingrich for not being conservative enough on spending and taxes • had 100 percent ratings with the NRA and pro-life groups INTRODUCTION: THE WAY BACK 5 • voted to impeach Bill Clinton twice • worked tirelessly for George W. Bush during the 2000 Florida recount • supported the war in Afghanistan • supported the war in Iraq • campaigned for George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004 LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE CONSISTENCY I was, to paraphrase Saint Paul, a conservative’s conservative. And I still believe that Republican politicians usually lose elections, not because they are too conservative, but because they stray too far from William Buckley’s worldview. But in this book, I will tell you some ways I believe our conservative approach needs to be modifi ed and enlarged. None of those changes discussed here involve a rethinking of the relationship between the individual and the government. That is the essential relationship we have to get right in our republic if it’s to work, and one that must again be our primary focus. I start this book where I began 15 years ago in Congress: I am a conservative of libertarian tilt, and I want the federal government out of our pocketbooks and out of our bedrooms. That last demand may be diffi cult for some of my friends to hear. I’ll share my thoughts on that subject later, but I will note here that we conservatives can no longer champion federalism in one area and dismiss it in another. Either we follow the founding fathers’ wisdom contained in the Tenth Amendment and honor the Constitution’s meaning, or we do not. That means if the Iowa Supreme Court overturns the pop- ular will of the people by nullifying a gay marriage ban, conserva- 6 INTRODUCTION: THE WAY BACK tives should respect Iowa’s constitutional right to settle the matter and keep the federal government out of the state’s business. We cannot claim the constitutional high ground in our efforts to fi ght the nationalization of health care and fi nance while de- manding that Washington become entangled in gay marriage de- bates and ob-gyn issues. Either we are for a limited federal government, or we are not. You will also discover in this book that like Bill Buckley I have a lot of Burke in me, and Burke’s thinking starts with this: Respect reality. Understand the age you’re living in, understand its facts. Because of Burke—and the words of Russell Kirk and Ronald Reagan—you’ll also discover another area where I believe conservatives can make great gains, and that’s the environment. To my friends on the Right I say, “Hear me out. It’s the job of conservatives to conserve.” And moving forward, conservatives must be seen as defenders of the environment, American tax dollars, military force, and the historic relationship between the individual and the federal government. In his conservative classic Up from Liberalism, Mr. Buckley wrote, I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIA. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me.

Load more