REAGAN's REVOLUTION

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

The election of Ronald Reagan on November 4, 1980 was one of the two most important elections of the 20^th Century.  It was a revolution in every way.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) decisively defeated one term incumbent Herbert Hoover by 472-59 Electoral votes.  His election ushered in the era of aggressive liberalism, expanding the size of government, and establishing diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union.  Roosevelt’s inner circle, his “brain trust”, were dedicated leftists, several of whom conferred with Lenin and Stalin on policy issues prior to 1932.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan decisively defeated one term incumbent Jimmy Carter by 489-49 Electoral votes.  His election ended the liberal era, shrunk the size of government, and rebuilt America’s military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence capabilities.  America reestablished its leadership in the world, ending the Soviet Empire, and the Soviet Union itself.

Reagan was a key leader in creating and promoting the conservative movement, whose policy and political operatives populated and guided his administration.  He was a true “thought leader” who defined American conservatism in the late 20^th Century.  Through his writings, speeches, and radio program, Reagan laid the groundwork, and shaped the mandate, for one of the most impactful Presidencies in American history.

The road from Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to Reagan’s Revolution began in 1940.

FDR, at the height of his popularity, choose to run for an unprecedented third term.  Roosevelt steered ever more leftward, selecting Henry Wallace as his running mate.  Wallace would run as a socialist under the Progressive Party banner in 1948.  Republican Wendell Willkie was the first private sector businessman to become a major party’s nominee.  Willkie had mounted numerous legal challenges to Roosevelt’s regulatory overreach. While losing, Willkie’s legacy inspired a generation of economists and activists to unite against big government.

As the allied victory in World War II became inevitable, the Willkie activists, along with leading conservative economists from across the globe, established policy organizations (“think tanks”) and publications to formulate and communicate an alternative to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Human Events, the premiere conservative newspaper began publishing in 1944. The Foundation for Economic Education was founded in 1946.

In 1947, conservative “free market”, anti-regulatory economists met at the Mont Pelerin resort at the base of Mont Perelin near Montreaux, Switzerland. The greatest conservative minds of the 20^th Century, including Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, organized the “Mont Perelin Society” to counter the globalist economic policies arising from the Bretton Woods Conference.  The Bretton Woods economists had met at the Hotel Washington, at the base of Mount Washington in New Hampshire, to launch the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Conservative writer and thinker, William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review on November 19, 1955.   His publication, more than any other, would serve to define, refine and consolidate the modern Conservative Movement.

The most fundamental change was realigning conservatism with the international fight against the Soviet Union, which was leading global Communist expansion. Up until this period, American conservatives tended to be isolationist.  National Review’s array of columnists developed “Fusionism”, which provided the intellectual justification of conservatives being for limited government at home while aggressively fighting Communism abroad.  In 1958, the American Security Council was formed to focus the efforts of conservative national security experts on confronting the Soviets.

Conservative Fusionism was politically launched by Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) during the Republican Party Platform meetings for their 1960 National Convention.  Conservative forces prevailed. This laid the groundwork for Goldwater to run and win the Republican Party Presidential nomination in 1964.

The policy victories of Goldwater and Buckley inspired the formation of the Young Americans for Freedom, the major conservative youth movement.  Meeting at Buckley’s home in Sharon, Connecticut on September 11, 1960, the YAF manifesto became the Fusionist Canon. The conservative movement added additional policy centers, such as the Hudson Institute, founded on July 20, 1961.

Goldwater’s campaign was a historic departure from traditional Republican politics.  His plain-spoken assertion of limited government and aggressive action against the Soviets inspired many, but scared many more.  Kennedy’s assassination had catapulted Vice President Lyndon Johnson into the Presidency.  LBJ had a vision of an even larger Federal Government, designed to mold urban minorities into perpetually being beholding to Democrat politicians.  Goldwater’s alternative vision was trounced on election day, but the seeds for Reagan’s Conservative Revolution were sown.

Reagan was unique in American politics.  He was a pioneer in radio broadcasting and television.  His movie career made him famous and wealthy.  His tenure as President of the Screen Actors Guild thrust him into the headlines as Hollywood confronted domestic communism.

Reagan’s pivot to politics began when General Electric hired him to host their popular television show, General Electric Theater. His contract included touring GE plants to speak about patriotism, free market economics, and anti-communism. His new life within corporate American introduced him to a circle of conservative businessmen who would become known as his “Kitchen Cabinet”.

The Goldwater campaign reached out to Reagan to speak on behalf of their candidate on a television special during the last week of the campaign.  On October 27, 1964, Reagan drew upon his GE speeches to deliver “A Time for Choosing”.  His inspiring address became a political classic, which included lines that would become the core of “Reaganism”:

“The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So, we have come to a time for choosing ... You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream—the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order—or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

The Washington Post declared Reagan’s “Time for Choosing”: "the most successful national political debut since William Jennings Bryan electrified the 1896 Democratic convention with his Cross of Gold speech."  It immediately established Reagan as the heir to Goldwater’s movement.

The promise of Reagan fulfilling the Fusionist vision of Goldwater, Buckley, and a growing conservative movement inspired the formation of additional groups, such as the American Conservative Union in December 1964.

In 1966, Reagan trounced two-term Democrat incumbent Pat Brown to become Governor of California, winning by 57.5 percent.  Reagan’s two terms became the epicenter of successful conservative domestic policy attracting top policy and political operatives who would serve him throughout his Presidency.

Retiring after two terms, Reagan devoted fulltime to being the voice, brain, and face of the Conservative Movement.  This included a radio show that was followed by over 30 million listeners.

In 1976. the ineffectual moderate Republicanism of President Gerald Ford led Reagan to mount a challenge.  Reagan came close to the unprecedented unseating of his Party’s incumbent.  His concession speech on the last night of the Republican National Convention became another political classic.  It launched his successful march to the White House.

Reagan’s 1980 campaign was now aided by a more organized, broad, and capable Conservative Movement. Reagan’s “California Reaganites” were linked to Washington, DC-based “Fusionists”, and conservative grassroots activists who were embedded in Republican Party units across America. The Heritage Foundation had become a major conservative policy center on February 16, 1973.  A new hub for conservative activists, The Conservative Caucus, came into existence in 1974.

Starting in 1978, Reagan’s inner circle, including his “Kitchen Cabinet”, worked seamlessly with this vast network of conservative groups: The Heritage Foundation, Kingston, Stanton, Library Court, Chesapeake Society, Monday Club, Conservative Caucus, American Legislative Exchange Council, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, the Eagle Forum, and many others.   They formed a unified and potent political movement that overwhelmed Republican moderates to win the nomination and then buried Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party in November 1980.

After his landslide victory, which also swept in the first Republican Senate majority since 1956, Reaganites and Fusionists placed key operatives into Reagan’s transition.  They identified over 17,000 positions that affected Executive Branch operations.  A separate team identified the key positions in each cabinet department and major agency that had to be under Reagan’s control in the first weeks of his presidency.

On January 21, 1981, Reagan’s personnel team immediately removed every Carter political appointee.  These Democrat functionaries were walked out the door, identification badge taken, files sealed, and their security clearance terminated.  The Carter era’s impotent foreign policy and intrusive domestic policy ended completely and instantaneously.

Reagan went onto to lead one of the most successful Presidencies in American history. His vision of a “shining city on the hill” continues to inspire people around the world to seek better lives through freedom, open societies, and economic liberty. 

Whither CPAC?

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) begins today.  Ironically attendance has skyrocketed while the quality and diversity of discussion has plummeted.  It is as if the movement that vanquished the Soviet Empire has adopted the Soviet Comintern model.

Diversity of opinion is prohibited. Tired old leaders are favored over new experimental thinkers. Ideological purity, not intellect, is the requirement for admission. Empty slogans are shouted to the uniform applause of rooms of people who strangely seem to all look the same. Down with Obama! Up with the Tea Party! Down with the climate change hoax! All hail Limbaugh! Down with the lies of the Lame Stream Media!

CPAC was formed in 1973 as a forum for geographically and ideologically diverse conservatives to exchange ideas, and build an ever expanding network of activists to eventually prevail on the major issues of the late-20th Century. Members of Congress, and their staff, attended to report on legislative ideas at the national level while learning about successful legislative ideas at the state level. Networking turned new ideas and energy into creative ways to govern and to shape dialogue on emerging issues.

Cold warriors, libertarians, values voters, economic conservatives, and traditionalists heard the icons of their movement as well as the up & coming leaders. The conservative movement was born in the Enlightenment, forged during the American and Industrial Revolutions, and launched as a counter balance to an ever expanding federal government and the external threat of Communism. CPAC was designed to grow this movement through learning and applying new ideas, and attracting new allies, to core principles. This was an expanding intellectual universe and it was thrilling to attend.

The CPAC that gave traction to the Reagan Revolution is long gone. Conservative organizers seem to now be taking meeting tips from the Communist Chinese Party Congress on how to further stifle innovation, democratic exchange of ideas, and how to alienate a nation. TheoCons, NeoCons, and Tea Partiers are using CPAC to perfect ways to build ever smaller tents for their movement. The true conservative legacy is in dire peril.

Of course the Chinese, and the Soviets before them, didn’t care much for debate anyway; they were after all single-party regimes. We would point out to the organizers of CPAC that people have a rather clear historical tendency to reject this kind of governance. Stifling debate in favor of ideology does not shore up a movement. It destroys it. The Soviets learned this the hard way in 1989; we hope the Chinese will learn a similar lesson sometime soon.

The analogy to the Communist system goes further. What we have been witnessing in the GOP ranks over the last several election cycles even uses the old Soviet term: “Purge.” This is what Stalin did after Trotsky; what Khrushchev did after Stalin; what Mao did during his Cultural Revolution; and what Deng did after Mao.

CPAC’s ongoing meltdown was highlighted again with the snubbing of Governor Chris Christie, probably the most popular Republican office holder in the country today. This decision is illogical in the extreme to anyone not sufficiently indoctrinated. A group of gay Republicans, GOProud, has also been shut out, making a mockery of the noble conservative tradition of personal freedom. This is proof positive that the movement’s hard core is more interested in biblically inspired government intervention than defending individual rights. Just like the old Central Committee, they are so insular that their eventual crash will come as a complete shock.

As a coda, we recall that in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 convention speech, he stressed that conservatism values proven ways, "not because they are old, but because they are true." CPAC is turning its back on traditions dating back to the Enlightenment where truth is not announced, but arrived at through an evolutionary process of debate and exchange. The current rejection of empiricism in science mirrors the closing of its doors to those with differing ways to apply conservative principles. We doubt Barry Goldwater would be invited to CPAC today, or would want to go even if he were.

It is a sad day for those of us who have been part of the conservative movement, and no less so for those who study it and respect its legacy even if disagreeing with its favored policies at times.

Scot Faulkner attended twenty-one CPACs and spoke at three of them. He was Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations and former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and instructor in Communications Studies.

Where have all the REAL Conservatives Gone?

Published in History News Network

http://hnn.us/articles/where-have-all-real-conservatives-gone

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

Recent Republican and Conservative convocations have displayed one common thing. Those who pass for thinkers and leaders of these intertwined movements think they can keep doing the same things but achieve better results. With the notable except of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, most Republicans, after sifting through the debris of November 6, think they need new spokespeople and better packaging.

The only thing standing between Republicans and the great Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984 is them. This is a sad commentary on once noble movements. Republican and Conservative “leaders” think 21st Century Americans are waiting to embrace 10th Century stands on social issues and science, and blustery vague pronouncements on government spending. Does any rational person think today’s Republicans and conservatives bear the slightest resemblance to those who rallied around Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? Those two icons would not have finished in the top ten in the 2012 Iowa Caucus or South Carolina primary.

What built the success of late 20th Century Republicanism and conservatism was not just charismatic and articulate candidates. After World War II, the Foundation for Economic Education and its publication The Freeman (1946), the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (1953), and National Review (1955) formed a triad of scholarly forums where the great thinkers of 20th Century conservatism discussed issues. Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Heyak, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, and countless other great minds, applied the principles of the Enlightenment (1650-1789) and 19th Century liberalism to modern challenges. This three hundred year provenance of reason, critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and the nature of man and his relationship to the state formed a solid foundation for philosophical exploration. It is hard to go wrong using John Locke, Isaac Newton, Denis Diderot, Charles-Louis Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and America’s Founding Fathers, as touch stones for civil discourse on the role of government in society.

Unfortunately, today’s conservative touch stones are Karl Rove, Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. The forums are soundbites on Fox News and Talk Radio. Today’s activists came of age under George W. Bush’s NeoCon global adventurism, theocratic government activism, and opportunistic federal spending. They view the libertarian/conservative fusionism of Goldwater/Reagan through this clouded lens. The Republican and conservative movements have become what Russell Kirk once stated he despised a party of “millenarian ideas of pseudo-religious character.”

Where are the REAL Conservatives? Who today mentions Enlightenment ideas, or bases their policies on this noble philosophical heritage? What the Right has now is a handful of pundits, and a disdain for those who possess any scholarly credential. The demise of the conservatives is not a matter of “messaging” as many on their side has claimed. It is a demise of intellect. The great sages of conservatism, from Edmund Burke to John Adams and contemporary figures like Buckley, spent their time reading not blogs, but books. Further, they spent time writing dissertations on them; unlike today’s “leaders” who wear their ignorance as badges of honor and electability.

Has conservative philosophy been lost? In the words of Kirk, citing T.S. Eliot, has “wisdom” been lost to a vapid neoconservative philosophy of “information”?

The exchange of ideas -- the cornerstone of philosophy and democracy -- depends upon differing sides exchanging ideas. It cannot consist of one side saying, for example, diplomacy means blowing up the United Nations building in New York, and the other wanting to cede America’s sovereign authority to an unaccountable and dysfunctional international body.

This shows only how the extremes have grown so far from the roots of Western political and philosophical thought. Yet there are a handful of us who still think these matters deserve consideration aside from partisan politics, electioneering, and fundraising.

We are in a different place now. Conservatism has been drawn into the blogosphere, the talk radio universe, and the cable news echo chambers in which each satisfies their own micro-targeted audiences. Even “live” forums like CPAC and the National Review Institute Summit are more forums for media soundbites than critical discourse. Conservatives, but also all Americans, need civil forums for the purpose of good governance and debate, deeply rooted in conservative principles and tempered by liberal ones, supporting openness, and nurturing common sense and common ground.

We write in that spirit and in the hope that both sides in our democracy reclaim their roots. Conservatives, in particular, must re-examine their evolution over the several centuries, and return to key philosophical principles, if they wish to remain relevant. Our view here is that a robust democracy only flourishes when both sides match each other. Today there is no balance, and we are hopeful that will change.

Republicans in Freefall

This was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/03/opinion-republicans-in-freefall/

Things could not be bleaker for the Republican Party. Its fund raising fell apart over a year ago as a backlash to immigration reform. Regularly, President Bush sets new record lows for how much a modern president can be disliked and how completely his policies can be rejected. Three special election defeats in Republican strongholds are proving that there will be no safe-havens in November. The latest polls show voters preferring Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 53 percent to 32 percent. This is nearly twice the deficit the Republicans faced going into the disastrous 2006 elections.

This is a portrait of a party in freefall, yet many Republicans remain in denial. They grasp at straws about America’s racial undercurrents and the Democratic Party’s uncanny ability to lose elections. These retreats into fantasy will not prevent the tsunami that is heading toward the party on Nov. 4.

Republicans I speak with are just as fed up with their party as Americans in general. The Republican Party seems like a random collection of egos and personal agendas. Many of these personal agendas have embraced Big Government and Big Brother with more zeal than the most ardent leftist. They see dispensing favors and funds as their ticket to electoral bliss. They ignore the epic failures of the Bush presidency, and those of the recent Republican era in Congress, in the hopes that Americans will somehow do the same.

The Republicans have a razor-thin window of opportunity before all is lost. The November elections are just over five months away. Voters want something real, and their skepticism and cynicism are reaching record levels. They know the campaign calendar dictates that everything said by a politician is suspect from now through the election. Candidates from across the political spectrum prove this during every campaign cycle when they say anything, including fabricate and outright lie, in order to dupe voters into supporting them. Voters want to see real actions that back up the words.

The Republicans can still do something that could save them. They could treat the Bush administration like it was the opposition party. Can you honestly envision Republican members of Congress, as well as their pundits and activists, letting Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get away with the corruption, incompetence, waste and abuse regularly displayed during the last seven years by the Bush administration? Of course not. Republicans would have scrambled to the microphones attacking every moment of the administration and hauling every official they could before their oversight committees.

The strategic error made by Republicans is that they began looking at everything through a partisan lens. If a Democrat does it - it is fundamentally bad. If Mr. Bush or another Republican does the exact same thing - it is fundamentally good. Most Democrats suffer from this same myopia, but they are not the ones perceived to be in power. Oversight hearings and spirited attacks by Rep. Henry Waxman and others are viewed as holding our government accountable. Republican efforts to hamper these actions are rightly viewed as a conspiracy to shield the Bush Administration from accountability.

This is a no-win situation for Republicans. Their only hope is to begin exposing the foibles of the Bush administration with even more zeal than Mr. Waxman and his Democratic colleagues. This should be easy for a real Republican or real conservative. There is very little worth preserving from the last seven years. Except for some excellent appointments to the federal courts, Bush and his acolytes have been the antithesis of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater on everything that matters. The sooner their legacy is erased the better for the Republican Party.

The Republicans can start their return from the dead by returning to their roots - displaying a healthy skepticism of Big Government and fighting government waste. Waste is waste and corruption is corruption, no matter which party is in charge. Republicans must recover their moral compass.

Members of Congress should begin their resurrection by aggressively conducting investigations and oversight of waste and mismanagement in the federal government. In recent weeks, $7.8 billion was reported spent in Iraq without adequate documentation. There are reports of highly unethical and possibly illegal procurement and contracting actions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Coast Guard is not adequately investigating and preventing marine accidents. The list of improvement opportunities is endless. Criticizing these, and other examples of mismanagement, is a good first step for the Republicans in Congress to show some real concern about government integrity. Republican journalists should also be aggressively pursuing and reporting on incompetence and wrongdoing in every other nook and cranny of the current administration.

The Republican Party must take this kind of substantive action if it wants to convince voters that it is mending its ways. With the August recess, national conventions, Olympics and probably an early adjournment, there are only a few precious weeks left for the Republicans in Congress to avoid electoral oblivion.