Big Jolly Politics

politics in Harris County and Texas

Where Will We Go From Here?

by

 

After agonizing for months over my choice in the GOP Presidential race in this 2016 election, I voted yesterday.  For the first time since I cast my first vote almost 40 years ago, I felt a sense of loss and bewilderment as I left the polling place.

Forty years ago this month, I began my personal journey as a conservative.  On a cold evening in February, 1976, a friend of mine and I—both in the second semester of our senior year of high school—attended a small gathering in Peoria, Illinois, where Ronald Reagan was speaking to a group comprised mostly of old friends from his high school and college days in Dixon and Eureka, Illinois.

I was not there that night by accident.  Twice before, due to my parents’ political and social ties, I had personally engaged with the future President.  The first time, which I only “remember” through the stories that my father later told, the then-Governor of California was so bored with the adults who were seeking his attention, that he left their company and spent the better part of an afternoon talking and laughing with a 10-year old boy who was oblivious to who he was, but who enjoyed and monopolized his company.  The second time, a few years later, I spoke with him over the phone twice during calls he made to my mother to plan a retirement party for one of his college football teammates, and he genuinely seemed to care about how I was doing in school and what my own hopes and dreams were.  It was because of these experiences, and the coaxing of my parents and my friend, that I took a break from home work on a winter night in 1976 to attend the meeting in Peoria.

Reagan spoke that night, not as a stilted candidate, but as a friend to those of us in the room, about his vision for the GOP and the country, as well as his strategy for the upcoming Illinois primary.  And what I heard that night would start me on my own political journey—one I still travel today.  Much of what he said that night would find its way into the 1976 GOP platform, and then into his blueprint for a “New Republican Party,” which he unveiled in early 1977.

It is hard to explain to someone who did not live through those years the state of the country at that time.  Like others my age, I had grown-up watching the country seemingly unravel through the riots, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and Soviet expansion, and it truly seemed like no one knew what to do or how to lead the country into the future.  And yet, here was a man that exuded confidence and optimism about the future, and who seemed to deeply understand and love our country in a way I had never heard expressed.  Though I would see him speak a few more times over the next decade, it would be what he said that night that changed everything for me.

I think the journalist and author, Theodore White, captured the predicament we faced in those years best in his two books:  In Search of History and America in Search of Itself.  At the end of the first book, written soon after the 1976 election, he saw a coming decision between

whether America would be transformed, in the name of Opportunity, simply into a Place, a gathering of discreetly defined and entitled groups, interests and heritages; or whether it could continue to be a nation, where all heritages joined under roof-ideas of communities within government.

Then, toward the end of the second book, published after the 1980 election, he made the following observation:

I write and close this book in a clouded time, not knowing whether it is twilight or dawn, an era ending or an era beginning.  It is twilight if new policy carries us back to the old America, before its transformation; it is dawn if new policy carries us forward to release us from civil fear and the web of federal control.  Somewhere, in the decades of upheaval, came a wrong turning.  Another wrong turning could take politics away from traditional politicians and bring us convulsions in the streets.

For most of my adult life, I believed that—with Reagan’s guidance—we had come through the upheaval to start a revitalization of America based on the best of its principles, that the world had been made safe from totalitarianism through American leadership, and that a consensus had formed that “the era of big government was over.”

But then, we took another wrong turn that only now seems clear through our rear-view mirror.  Through the tumultuous year of scandal and impeachment in 1998, the disputed election of 2000, 9/11, and the Iraq War, the new consensus broke apart to unearth grievances and ideas that we thought had been vanquished.  Then, the responses to Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008 showed how fragile our resurrection from civil fear and federal control had been.  And over these last 7 years, even after the election of our first African-American President, the unraveling of the consensus and the re-emergence of federal control exposed the consequence of our failure to fully assimilate all of our neighbors into our American community.  Adding to all of this upheaval at home, the progress we made to form a better world through American leadership has crumbled, with Russia, China, North Korea, and a totalitarian faction of political Islam, each threatening world stability—and America.

Frankly, I believe we are more fractured at home and abroad today than at any time since Nixon left the White House, and there is no Reagan to help guide us out of this mess.  Instead, we are left with candidates who either lack the understanding of America to lead, lack an appreciation of current problems to lead, lack the skills to lead, lack the vision to lead, lack the experience and maturity to lead, or lack the integrity to lead.  In this vacuum has emerged a convulsion of political extremes, which is leading us toward a choice between an entertaining populist who wants to tear the “establishment” down and start over, and two varying degrees of socialists.  As the late Yogi Berra might have said, we’ve reached the fork in the road and we have to take it.

So, as I left the polling place yesterday I truly felt as though we had lost what we had worked so hard to re-establish over these last 40 years, and I’m bewildered with the fork we will take this fall.  I honestly don’t know in the short term where we will go from here, and I am concerned that things will get worse before they get better.

However, as I think back to that night 40 years ago, I still believe that eventually the answer will emerge and we will find the right road to take.  But it won’t be behind the leadership of another Reagan—that moment is over.  Instead, the leadership, when it emerges will come from the source of strength that Reagan believed in—individual Americans applying our shared principles.  When and if we embrace each other and our shared principles again, and we find the courage to use them again to build a strong society of free people, this moment too shall pass.

I believe this will happen, because it must happen.  As Reagan reminded President Ford and the delegates at the end of the 1976 Republican Convention, in the battle for our exceptional country and society “there is no substitute for victory.”

 

Is the Lighthouse still there?

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

Like many of you, I am glad to see this turbulent year come to an end—until I think about the massive storm called “2016,” which is fast approaching.

When ships sailed stormy seas, or lost their way in a dense fog, captains always knew that beacons from lighthouses along the shorelines would help guide the crew to safe waters.

For many generations through political and social upheavals—famines and genocides, revolutions and civil wars, world wars and a cold war—people around the globe took comfort that there was a beacon in the storm:  the United States of America–U.S.  But as we turn from the turbulence of 2015 toward the gathering storm of 2016, frustrated questions keep floating through the fog from Bangor, Maine to Bangladesh:  Where is the beacon?  Is the Lighthouse still there?

We could spend the next year arguing ad nauseam through the storm over whose fault it is that the beacon can’t be seen by anyone anymore—there is enough blame to fill an ocean.  But if we are to get to 2017 and beyond without a major shipwreck, we must fix the Lighthouse and relight the beacon.  Simply put, the world needs a functional and rational U.S. to lead it through this storm.  And to have a functional and rational U.S., we have to reassert self-responsibility for our own lives, health and security, and for that of our families, our neighborhoods, and our states; so that we have the resources needed to fix the Lighthouse and relight that beacon.

Then, we have to muster the courage to turn the beacon back “on”—and keep it lit through the coming storms.

The worst part about all of our self-centered actions that have enabled the squalls and turbulence to continue to batter our society over the many decades, is that we have wasted so much time and squandered so many resources and goodwill—with little social capital left with which to engage in the serious work of preserving our society of free people, and maintaining and modernizing that Lighthouse.

It’s time to put aside the childish desires, envies and pursuits—and the Chicken-little fears of a computer-modeled future—that have distracted us for too long, and to get back to the hard job of rebuilding a serious nation of free people from the individual to Washington.

There is still time, but the storm is getting closer.

Here’s to hoping that at the end of 2016 we can look back from calm seas and again see the beacon lighting the way for future generations.  I believe that is the greatest Christmas gift we could wish for each other this year.

Paul Ryan For Speaker

by

Paul Ryan American flag

By Ed Hubbard and Steve Parkhurst

By the end of this week, Congressman Paul Ryan will be the next Speaker of the House. Both of us believe that his election will be a great step forward for our party and our country.

Unfortunately, some among us will always be unhappy—even when they get what they want.  They will continue to criticize, fundraise, and write books based on the division they continue to create, including now shooting their rhetorical guns at Ryan, whom many of these “conservative” critics adored just yesterday.  Seriously, with friends like these, who needs the Democrats?

Regardless of the noise these dividers may generate, the truth is that the elevation for Ryan to the Speakership provides us with a rare opportunity to both reform government based on conservative principles, and to then actually govern using those principles.

For his part, Ryan has been offering insights into what he wants to accomplish as Speaker. In an email last week to his House colleagues, Ryan wrote, “I know many of you want to show the country how to fix our tax code, how to rebuild our military, how to strengthen the safety net, and how to lift people out of poverty. I know you’re willing to work hard and get it done, and I think this moment is ripe for real reform.”

For a real understanding of Paul Ryan, look no further than to his 2014 book, The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea. The reality of Ryan’s early life, including the loss of his dad, and his introduction to the political process, are all worth reading in further detail. Understanding Ryan’s family, and his commitment to and appreciation of time with his wife and three kids, is also worthwhile.  All of these life experiences have combined with his commitment to conservative principles to create a coherent conservative reformer and leader.

As for the “real reform” that Ryan spoke of, as a leader in the Republican party, he already has demonstrated his willingness to buck the system as needed, and he has offered roadmaps for economic growth and entitlement reform.

A post last week by the Tax Foundation stated that under a Speaker Ryan, “the prospects for sound, comprehensive tax reform are bright.” This should be no surprise, after all Ryan had his economic and supply-side upbringing at the foot of the master, the late Jack Kemp. This finding was based on the ten months that Ryan has spent as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the work of that body in those ten months.

And Ryan’s commitment to Reagan’s and Kemp’s visions of the Republican party doesn’t end with tax reform, but extends to their dreams of giving all our neighbors a hand-up out of poverty through the creative use of the free market, the private sector, and local institutions. Fifty years of failure caused by the current model of a “war on poverty” is simply enough wasted time and money, and enough of the loss of dignity, pride and hope for the millions who got swallowed up by the insidious programs and offerings from big government. Ryan points a way for our party and our communities toward a better model.

Paul Ryan released his findings and offered a new plan in the summer of 2014. His plan went nowhere, as is to be expected with President Obama clinging to his pen and his phone. However, what Ryan seeks, a consolidation of redundant services that offer help to the poor and needy, and thus a wiser use of the money so that more of the money being spent is enabling those seeking a hand-up and not a handout, instead of being spent of bigger and bigger government.

Ryan’s embrace of civil society is true to the roots of conservatism. True conservatism is rooted in efforts of individuals and private organizations stepping in where government can be pushed aside. This line of thinking needs a greater embrace from Republicans and from conservatives. If you desire a more constitutionally limited government, this is one way to begin the march toward it.

Therefore, our emphatic support of Ryan should not be confused with an embrace of the idea that conservatives should “compassionately” do more at the federal level. As limited government conservatives, we want power restored to local communities, sooner rather than later. Instead, our support for Paul Ryan is an embrace of a new way forward. It is support for shining a light on problems that get us to stop tinkering around the edges, and instead adopt reforms that really help our neighbors live better lives and achieve their God-given potentials.

One way to gage Ryan’s potential is by the enemies he is already creating—he is the Speaker the Dems have always feared.  According to the likes of the New York Times, Huffington Post, Mother Jones and Slate, the liberals don’t want him as the next Speaker.  In fact, John Hart candidly noted in his editorial for Opportunity Lives, “Ryan is the Speaker conservatives have always dreamed of and liberals have always feared. Let the battle begin.”

Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, wrote for Investor’s Business Daily last week, “If Paul Ryan is speaker, he will have a chance to lead. A chance to show his critics that he can truly unite the Republican Party around limited government principles and make progress in stopping Obama’s agenda.”  We agree.

In his email to House colleagues last week, Ryan stated, “we can show the country what a commonsense conservative agenda looks like.” Again, we agree.  Let’s finally unite to press that agenda.

As we see it, Paul Ryan is the best choice for Speaker of the House. He is the right man at the right time.

Review: Jack Kemp by Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes

by

By Steve Parkhurst

Finally! It may have taken six and a half years after his passing, but there is finally a book decidedly about Jack Kemp. Due for release in bookstores and online this coming Tuesday, Jack Kemp: The Bleeding-Heart Conservative Who Changed America by Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes, offers readers a fresh recap of the life of “the most important politician of the twentieth century who was not President.” A sentiment I agree with fully.

Any reader of Big Jolly Politics knows of the regular mentions of Jack Kemp on this website, primarily by Ed Hubbard and myself, but not limited to the two of us.

While Jack Kemp is not an authorized biography, this is the first attempt to explain a man and his legacy that deserves understanding and studying. Jack Kemp is well documented and it reads fairly well as it never gets bogged down in mush the way some political narratives can.

The authors rely on news reports of the day and official documents to back up plenty of fresh interviews with those who worked with Jack Kemp over the course of his days as a football player, a Congressman, a Presidential candidate, a Vice-Presidential candidate and finally as a think tank entrepreneur.

Kondracke and Barnes spend a lot of time weaving their way through the two biggest domestic legislative accomplishments of the Ronald Reagan presidency: the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Jack Kemp was crucial and necessary to both.

The supply-side economics which were the basis of the large tax rate cuts voted and signed into law in 1981 are but one part of the success story. The 1986 Tax Reform Act was at least equally as important, though seemingly less talked about in political writing. Much has been written about the supply-side economics movement on the 1970s and 1980s, but the 1986 story is told less often.

Both stories are shared in Jack Kemp in great detail, with Jack Kemp not necessarily playing the hero, but showing true leadership, much of it based purely on principle. And readers are offered a play-by-play for both, and for good reason.

The twenty-five years of prosperity that the tax rate cuts engineered are impossible to argue against, though many on the Left are still trying to debunk. And the tax reform was so monumental it garnered “the largest audience for a bill signing during the Reagan presidency.” And as Kondracke and Barnes note, “Reagan called the measure “the best anti-poverty bill, the best pro-family measure, the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress of the United States.”

The authors also editorialized, “The 1986 tax reform stands even now as a model for leaders of both parties who hope to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more economically efficient.” Reading Jack Kemp makes this statement clearer, and valid.

These were stories worth reading. For some, the play-by-play will be too much minutiae to digest. For students or researchers, there can never be enough. It is a fine line to tread with a book such as this. Congressional and policy battles can be that way. And the policy fights are not limited to economics, but also reach into foreign policy and matters related to the defense of the nation.

Jack Kemp offers much in the way of campaign reporting on Kemp’s campaign for President in 1988 and his campaign to be Bob Dole’s Vice President in 1996. But compared to the policy battles of the day, the campaigns were given considerably less space.

One disappointment in Jack Kemp, is the lack of focus on Kemp’s work in what we would call “civil society,” though there are many differing views on what that actually refers to. Yes, there is an entire chapter titled “Poverty Warrior” which recounts Kemp’s years as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). But this chapter really does not do justice to what Jack Kemp wanted and what he was actually fighting for.

During the years of the first Bush Administration, 1989 and 1993, there was only one point where a Kempian approach to things could have really changed perceptions and reality for President Bush. That point came in 1992 when Los Angeles erupted into riots after the Rodney King jury verdict. Jack Kemp was probably the last best hope to save the Bush administration and earn it a second term in office.

But, it was too late to save the Bush presidency. The work that Kemp had pursued could have changed history, had there been a more receptive audience, both in the White House and around the country. By the time the Bush administration cared about what Jack Kemp wanted to address, Bill Clinton had already told audiences he felt their pain, and he was on his way to unseating an incumbent President. The riots earned a mention on parts of 6 pages, total. For a book that consists of 327 pages of content, this is a real shame.

Jack Kemp spent plenty of time and political capital fighting for community-saving ideas like urban enterprise zones and parental choice in education. Kemp was indeed a “poverty warrior” wanting to offer a light at the end of the tunnel for those in the worst of despair, and refusing to turn his back on “the least of these.” Kemp saw economic growth as a vital element to turning the tide, or in the “rising tide” that would lift all boats. While he could be long-winded, as Kondracke and Barnes point out, and Kemp could talk more than some audiences were willing to listen, he never stopped believing in or advocating for economic growth as the ultimate solution.

The authors record their ultimate conclusion this way, “The full Kemp model—“bleeding heart” and “conservative”—is what the nation needs. Politicians who are principled, dynamic, positive, cheerful, inclusive, bipartisan, optimistic, unorthodox, disposed to compromise, committed to courting minorities, urban oriented, pro-growth, and antibureaucratic—and interested in ideas and action, not political tactics or personal attack. Idealistic. Visionary.”

We can quibble about these words until the end of time, and we probably will. Though it is hard to argue against them and remain true to them at the same time. But, the vision that a “Kemp model” (as the authors see it) offers, is the possibility of a return to greatness.

The reason to seek the “Kemp model” again now is rather simplistic in its nature, especially from a political point of view. In their interview with Norman Ornstein, he told the authors, “if Kemp had prevailed, we would be looking at a majority Republican party today” and they put forth, “because a Kempian GOP could win 40 to 50 percent of the Hispanic vote and 15 to 20 percent of the African American vote (versus 27 percent and 6 percent, respectively, for Mitt Romney in 2012).”

It is hard to argue against that math.

There are many reasons why the Kempiam model did not succeed in the ways that it could have. Some of these reasons are covered by Kondracke and Barnes, other reasons will have to wait. What Jack Kemp makes clear, is that it can be done. It just cannot be done alone. Whether is a single politician who takes up the mantle against the D.C. machine, or by a society that sends elected representatives to Washington and just hopes for the best. Jack Kemp needed Ronald Reagan, and vise versa. But even then, they were two men against the world.

What we need will require a team.

Leaders, whether church, business or political, cannot make themselves the things that make up the “Kemp model.” Not overnight anyway. But we can nurture these things in our young people and in our next generation of leaders. To not do this, to not pursue these ideals, is to witness more of the same that we have watched since the day Ronald Reagan boarded Marine One for the last time and waved goodbye.

The price for such inaction is way too high.

Finally, there is a Jack Kemp story beyond the Washington D.C. area code waiting to be told. That story will be told. This narrative is not offered in this noble work by Mort Kondracke and Fred Barnes, but this book is an important first work in the telling of the Jack Kemp story and I highly recommend it.

As the title states, Jack Kemp “changed America”, it was not the other way around. To see the real possibilities that America can achieve, start with Jack Kemp add some Ronald Reagan, and begin the real work from there.

“Over a simple traffic stop …”: A Call to Action

by

“Over a simple traffic stop … I don’t get it  … I really don’t …”

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

Regardless of your reaction to the recent arrest and death of Sandra Bland, I think everyone can agree with that observation made by the arresting officer, DPS Trooper Brian Encinia, while he was still at the scene of the arrest. 

But there is a more chilling statement that he makes before this observation. 

While Trooper Encinia is subduing Ms. Bland, you can hear her crying and telling him that he has caused her to hit her head and that she has epilepsy.  His only response is “good … good.”  Now even if that response can be explained away as referring to something else going on, and that he didn’t hear her statement, that just means he wasn’t listening to her beyond hearing the increasing profanity she was using.  His audible response to Ms. Bland was callous enough; but if he didn’t hear her crying statement, it shows an added degree of callousness that cannot be explained away.  Sadly, it may provide a glimpse into the reason why Trooper Encinia doesn’t “get it.”

“Over a simple traffic stop … I don’t get it  … I really don’t …”

Here is what I get, finally, after several years of the Trayvon Martins and the Eric Garners, and of the community reactions to the events in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Charleston (and after watching both videos of the Bland arrest at http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Sandra-Bland-dash-cam-video-appears-to-have-been-6399017.php; and http://www.ebony.com/news-views/what-happened-to-sandra-bland-505#axzz3g3dmFTXF):  I finally understand why the activists behind the #BlackLivesMatter movement bristle when someone responds by saying that “all lives matter.”  Most of us believe that “all lives matter;” but many black men and women don’t think that the rest of us believe that their lives matter, and incidents like these recent events perpetuate that belief.  I challenge you to watch these videos and then answer a simple question honestly and objectively:  would Trooper Encinia have reacted the same way, and taken the same actions, when he returned to her car with the written warning had she been white (or even Hispanic or Asian)?

Now some of you won’t want to answer that question, and, instead will start typing comments accusing me of reverse racism or buying into the progressive, anti-white narrative so popular among progressive intellectuals.  Before you do that, or you stop reading out of disgust for what you think I am saying, let me make one thing clear:  I am not accusing Trooper Encinia of being a racist.  I would never presume the worst of people I do not know.

But over the years, as I’ve talked with friends in law enforcement across the country, I’ve learned that the exposure some officers have had to the worst elements of the seemingly perpetual crime and violence in African-American neighborhoods has hardened them to prepare themselves differently when encountering young black men and women, than when they encounter anyone else.  Over time, those individual experiences and reactions can accumulate so as to permeate and impact the culture of entire precincts and police departments.  I don’t pretend to understand why and how this happens (or how often it actually happens)—I’ll leave that explanation to those with a better understanding of psychology and sociology.  However, watching those videos of Trooper Encinia, who apparently has only been on the job for only about a year, I am reminded of the explanations I have heard over the years of how this hardened culture can manifest itself.

“Over a simple traffic stop … I don’t get it  … I really don’t …”

I challenge each of you reading this post to view both videos embedded in these linked articles:  http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Sandra-Bland-dash-cam-video-appears-to-have-been-6399017.php; and http://www.ebony.com/news-views/what-happened-to-sandra-bland-505#axzz3g3dmFTXF.  You need to look at the video embedded in the Houston Chronicle article first, because it is the dash-cam video that recorded the most activity and all of the audio.  Then take a look at the cell-phone video taken by a nearby citizen that fills in much of the video gap while the activity moves away from the line of site of the dash-cam video.  Although there is still a small gap of video, there is enough audio of that gap to allow you to form a pretty good understanding of what is happening.  Finally, listen to the explanation that Trooper Encinia gives to another person (presumably another officer) about how the incident unfolded, and ask yourself another simple question: does what you see and hear during the arrest match his later explanation?  Sadly, my answer based on just this evidence is “no”.

Although I am not ready to jump to a conviction of Trooper Encinia based solely on these videos, what I saw and heard leads me to two immediate conclusions:

1.      A thorough and transparent investigation of the arrest, detention and death of Sandra Bland must be conducted by the Texas Rangers (not just an investigation of her death), and I applaud those leaders, including Lt. Governor Patrick who have quickly called for such an investigation.  To be transparent, such an investigation should conclude with a written report shared with the public, which not only provides answers about the propriety of the arrest and detention of Ms. Bland, and the cause of her death, but also outlines new policies and procedures to implement to reduce the risk of such incidents in the future.

2.      Black Lives Matter!  Let me say it again, Black Lives Matter!  And conservatives must embrace this call to action.  Consistent with the recent speech given by former Governor Perry at the National Press Club in Washington, the party of Lincoln must take a leading role to advocate for real, permanent solutions to the problems faced by too many of our African-American neighbors.  It is a national tragedy that so many of our neighbors wake each morning believing that their countrymen don’t think they matter, and wondering whether they will live through that day.  In fact, it is not just a tragedy—I agree with some of the leaders of #BlackLivesMatter movement when they call the current situation a “state of emergency.”  We don’t have to embrace the progressive ideas promoted by the leaders of the #BlackLivesMatter movement to seize this moment to engage in a debate over real public actions and private actions that will address the problems of under-education, underemployment, and over-incarceration in African-American communities, which form the core of so many other problems that end in violent confrontations with law enforcement. 

“Over a simple traffic stop … I don’t get it  … I really don’t …”

The secret we conservatives continually whisper to each other is that progressive policies have perpetuated the problems experienced by black men and women in this country.  If we truly believe that, then the time is now to address and change that by creating and implementing policies that assure that every one of our fellow Americans is treated with equal dignity: at “a simple traffic stop,” on a sidewalk in your own community, in school, and at the workplace.

Remember, if we truly believe in a limited federal government and in the power of families, the private sector and local governments to address most issues, our neighbors must trust each other and their local governments.  That trust starts with each of us recognizing and protecting the humanity of all our neighbors, every day, in every situation.  Rebuilding that trust isn’t just any issue, it is THE moral and political cause for the future of the Republican Party and its conservative philosophy of limited government.  Without that trust, the constitutional model of federalism is dead … period.

A few years ago, a young Marine was speaking to a group of us and he posed this challenge:  “if we could go halfway around the world to fight for the freedom of people we didn’t know, can’t we finally walk across the streets of our communities and help our own neighbors experience the gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we were all promised?” 

The answer is “yes;” and the time for action is now.

“Over a simple traffic stop … I don’t get it  … I really don’t …”

To the family of Sandra Bland, I extend my profound condolences as a neighbor and fellow countrymen; and I pledge to you that this conservative understands and believes Black Lives Matter!

Statesmanship and our Goldwater Legacy

by

Ed Hubbard
Ed Hubbard

Since the inception of the GOP, ideals have mattered to Republicans.  The second plank of the Republican Platform of 1860 stated the following:

 

 

…[M]aintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

To these important ideals, let me add the following admonition:  the words we choose to express our ideals matter as much—and often, more—than the ideals themselves.

The Republican Party always has faced a paradox:  the GOP was created to preserve the principles, society and government formed by our Settlers and Founders, and to make them apply to, and include, all men (and, eventually, all women); but, this conservative mission to preserve the Founders’ ideals actually sought to preserve the most liberating ideal man has ever pursued—a society based on the acceptance of universal liberty, and the admonition to love our neighbor.  This paradox creates a natural tension within each of us between the conservative temperament of statesman, and the radical temperament of a reformer.

Unfortunately, while pursuing our quest to preserve the radical ideal of a society formed upon individual liberty, we too often have abandoned our conservative temperament.  As a result, we have said and done things that damage people’s perception of our commitment to live by the admonition to love our neighbor.  The seeds of those words and deeds have, over the last 50 years, grown into a distrust of our party among segments of our neighbors; and those neighbors no longer listen to us, let alone vote for our candidates.  In fact, the current Zeitgeist taught in our schools and echoed in millions of conversations each day, portrays us not as liberty-preserving neighbors who seek to build our communities, but as the exact opposite—people who are willing to hate, lie, cheat, steal, and discriminate to maintain a perceived status quo of racial, sexual and economic power.

How did this happen?  Fifty-five years ago, Richard Nixon still received 32{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the African-American vote for President, but eight years later he received just 8{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of that vote—and except for two unique landslide elections in 1972 and 1984, the GOP has not done much better since 1968.  What changed in between those elections was the planting of unintended bad-seed in 1964.  Just as Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford were corralling Republicans in the House and the Senate to pass landmark civil rights legislation over the firm opposition of Southern Democrats, another voice uttered words that at once invigorated the young conservative-movement activists within the GOP, while they scared many other voters.  The seed planted by those words now haunt us—for while we conservatives still admire the stirring defense of liberty in those phrases, the perceived immorality imbedded in those words have created a wall of distrust that we must breakdown.

What I am talking about is the famous line from the acceptance speech given by Barry Goldwater at the Cow Palace in San Francisco at the end of the 1964 Republican Convention.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

To a generation who had lived through the horrific effects of Fascist and Communist extremism that led to the devastation of World War II and the genocides committed by Hitler and Stalin, and to a public who had grieved through the recent murder of their President and who was seeing the violence committed upon civil rights protesters on the nightly news programs, these were not the words of a man who had:

  • supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960;
  • commanded an all-African-American unit during World War II;
  • desegregated the Arizona National Guard;
  • supported the Arizona NAACP; and
  • counted Martin Luther King, Jr., as a friend and political ally.

Instead they were heard and perceived by many as a call to immoderation and extremism, which made the country collectively gasp.  For instance, had Goldwater used the word “vigilance” in place of “extremism”, his intended meaning would have been the same, but much of the damage he wrought would never have occurred.  William F. Buckley, Jr., noted the unintended impact of Goldwater’s words in one of his last books, Flying High—his personal memoir of his relationship with Goldwater and the 1964 campaign—and made the following observation about such rhetoric:

Goldwater had learned too late the lesson that one must guard against any use of the word which, for many, amounted to immoral ends ….  It was so in 1964 with the word “extremism.”  It could not be hygienically used in any affirmative context.

What is so sad about this seed planted by Goldwater in 1964, is that it did not even reflect the thinking of our Founders, whose ideals we are committed to preserve.  Remember that it was Patrick Henry who famously said, “Give me Liberty, or give me death!”  But Henry also helped author the last two paragraphs of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which included these instructions to his countrymen and posterity:

… no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

And,

… it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

By ignoring Henry’s ideals, Goldwater’s well-intentioned words sowed a distrust that now runs very deep into certain segments of our society.  So, deep that we have little or no impact on what is happening in communities like Ferguson and Baltimore, and on society’s evolving acceptance of extending civil rights and privileges to same-sex couples.  Our inability to be involved in a credible way in the debates over these issues, and in finding and guiding solutions, is having, and will continue to have, negative consequences for our society—let alone for our party.

For instance, how can we promote returning power to local and State governments, when too many citizens in communities like Ferguson and Baltimore distrust local government; and how can we rebuild that trust when no one in those communities will listen to, or trust us, because we are perceived as “extreme”?  Moreover, how can we restore the centrality of the family unit in our system of self- and local-governance, when we immoderately condemn certain families who already exist in our neighborhoods?  We can belly-ache all we want about how the media and our schools portray us, but our own words created, and continue to exacerbate, this problem.

In this environment, we cannot meet one of the core obligations of conservatives, which the historian and U.S. Senator, Albert Beveridge, described over 100 years ago:

Conservatism means clear common sense, which equally rejects the fanaticism of precedent and the fanaticism of change.  It would not have midnight last just because it exists; and yet it knows that dawn comes not in a flash, but gradually–comes with a grand and beautiful moderation.  So the conservative is the real statesman.  He brings things to pass in a way that lasts and does good.

We must be statesmen again:  while we remain vigilant in our preservation of the ideals of liberty and justice expressed by both Henry and Goldwater, we must embrace the approach to temperament and values advocated by Henry.  We must take our formula of local statesmanship that depends on defending liberty and promoting self-governance through our love of neighbors, which has worked for us in rural and suburban communities, and bring it to our urban and metropolitan neighbors.  Only then will we be able to engage with African-American communities, LGBT communities—and all urban and metropolitan neighborhoods—to build trust, so that we can work with them to build lasting local institutions and find lasting local solutions to empower all of our neighbors to live a better life.

The last two Presidential Elections have shown us that the country is becoming more, not less, urban and metropolitan; and the issues faced by urban and metropolitan communities will drive national and state elections for the foreseeable future.  Unless we re-engage our neighbors in these communities in a manner that is true to our Founders’ ideals, our goal of re-establishing a Madisonian federal republic for the 21st Century—Reagan’s “Shining City on a Hill”—will never be realized.