SAVING REAGAN'S LEGACY

This was published in: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/193297-lip-service-to-reagan-is-not-honoring-him

It was also published in: http://hnn.us/article/154264

By Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

Do you honor Ronald Reagan by burying him? This issue was opened by Ford O'Connell’s new book "Hail Mary: The 10-Step Playbook for Republican Recovery".

There is a great double standard in partisan nostalgia. Democratic politicians and pundits are allowed to invoke countless icons of the left in order to rally their base. They also get to attract converts by presenting highly sanitized portrayals of their liberal pantheon. How often is Andrew Jackson’s obsessive hatred of Native Americans, Woodrow Wilson’s racism, or Lyndon Johnson’s corruption mentioned?

When Republicans get “misty-eyed” about Ronald Reagan the media is quick to pounce. They either bring “Iran-Contra” to the forefront or find new ways to dismiss Reagan’s role in destroying the Soviet Empire. Legions of “Reaganites” are still alive, yet the Reagan era is deemed ancient history, while Kennedy era milestones are celebrated annually.

However, the misuse of Reagan nostalgia concerns us because his name is being invoked in troubling and nefarious ways. Current political players, among what now passes for Republicans and conservatives, are at best cherry picking and at worst fabricating Reagan’s words and deeds in order to wrap themselves in his aura.

This is unfortunate on many levels. Reagan worked for decades -- and we mean “worked” in the true meaning, investing time and energy -- to build a coalition of differing voices in politics. Cold Warriors, economic conservatives, and social traditionalists, agreed to disagree, but aligned to a common core of belief. Reagan was unique in his abilities as a communicator, organizer, and coordinator of these factions, in that singular era.

Our era is very different. The Cold War has been replaced by complex geo-political competition and terrorism; political economy has flip-flopped, with conservatives acting as the big spenders; and the heartfelt belief in traditional values has entered a dark intolerant apocalyptic place.

Invoking Reagan into these 21st Century conundrums makes little sense. He was a man fit for his times, should be honored as such, and not tarnished by post-mortem association with the clown-car crowd that currently totes his name. From Palin to Santorum to Limbaugh, none of them worked for or with Reagan and therefore should not be able to profit from his legacy. Reagan should not be touted as a totem for Tea-partiers, who share nothing of his serious intellectual integrity, his work ethic, or his willingness to compromise with even the most serious of opponents -- from Gorbachev to Tip O’Neill.

For several years we have been urging responsible conservatives to take their history more seriously. The re-making of Reagan is an example of how ignorance of history leads to its hijacking and vivisection.

The Republican Party no longer stands for Reagan’s emblematic coalition building with Congress and the electorate. Its leaders have flown-off the ideological fringe. Reagan’s party no longer does him honor. The pretenders who claim his mantle need to do more than “get over it". They need to stand or fall on their own. Claiming Reagan’s legacy is unseemly when it masks their contempt for his values and leadership.

[Scot Faulkner served as Director of Personnel for Reagan and held executive positions during all eight years of his Administration. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.]

Rules of Engagement

by Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

IRS, Associated Press, Benghazi - It has been a sad month for America. The Nixonian turn of the Obama Administration has threatened basic liberties and trust, while the turn down the rabbit hole of the Congressional Republicans has undermined basic roles and responsibilities of the Legislative Branch.

Holding power accountable is a vital and fundamental part of America’s civic culture. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, and Article I of the Constitution outlining Congress’s powers and responsibility to protect the use of public funds, are pillars that hold our government and society together. Recent actions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches raise alarm.

As President Truman famously declared, “the buck stops here” at the President’s desk. No matter how much President Obama declares his innocence; no matter how much the President asserts he only learned about every problem from watching the news; he is responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch. Intimidation of citizens and the media, violations of privacy, violations of law, and covering-up facts are ultimately the fault of the person who sets the tone, and governs, the Executive Branch. If subordinates were “rogue”, then find out who and find out why. No second or third level functionary wakes-up one morning and decides to create national policy without receiving orders or telling others. To maintain otherwise insults the intelligence of all Americans. The alternative is an admission of gross negligence and incompetence emanating from the Oval Office.

The role of Congress is to use its oversight powers and responsibilities to expose and address illegal, unethical, and unseemly acts of federal officials. This oversight role has been an integral part of Congress since President George Washington. It is the key element of balancing powers among the three branches of the federal government.

Oversight is about truth seeking. When Congress uses this power to create fantasy instead of fact it disserves the institution and the public. The egregious performances by Executive Branch officials have unfortunately been equaled by over-the-top rhetoric and drama by Members of Congress. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetorical strategy of the GOP, and it is evident in these recent hearings. When there are failures in the functioning of government, it is up to Congress to investigate and call them to account. In these recent matters at State, Justice, and the IRS, the duty is obvious. It’s how the House majority has gone about it that is so problematic.

This is especially disappointing because Republicans have a strong record on oversight. In recent history, nothing stands out more than the Watergate hearings, to which many allusions have been made.

In 1973, the wrongdoings of the Nixon administration were brought to light by responsible, bipartisan hearings in which we heard memorable lines from the likes of GOP Senator Howard Baker, asking calmly, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The stakes were high. The modesty of the questioning allowed for the public to come to its own conclusions. The facts drove the investigation. Chairing the hearings was Democratic Senator Sam Ervin, of North Carolina. While there was certainly shrill demonizing of Nixon and the Republicans by liberals, this rancor was shut-out of the Ervin Hearings.

Republican leaders in Congress have their hands full. When Chairman Issa, and other “adults”, hold sway, the tone of the hearings hearken to the Ervin hearings. However, less seasoned Republicans on these committees, and those speaking on the House Floor, drown out the search for truth with “truther” style rhetoric. No matter how much some Republicans hate Obama, their best strategy is to let the petulance of Executive Branch witnesses drill holes in the Administration’s boat. When Republicans use their interrogation time to spout conspiracy theories instead of fact finding they divert attention from Obama onto themselves. They also waste precious time. They should be asking questions designed to peel back the “onion layers” to expose the rot. There will be plenty of time to assail the Obama Administration, once the facts, or the lies, are in hand.

The poor performance of both interrogators and interrogatees continue Washington, DC’s downward spiral into hyper-partisanship and perpetual campaigning. Every utterance seems aimed at producing the next soundbite for partisan pundits or campaign ads. Congressional hearings should enlighten and build trust, not become a fodder for comedians where the Members are mouthing their own punch lines.

Scot Faulkner served in the Reagan White House and as 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, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.

Pat McCrory’s Weird Science

This was published in the News Observer

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/30/2860925/denrs-new-mission-takes-wrong.html

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

There was a time when Republicans embraced Earth Day, established the Environmental Protection Agency, and considered stewardship of the environment a cornerstone of assuring America’s future. Those days now seem very far away as Republicans, including Governor McCory, are increasingly rejecting environmental protection and empirical science.

Prior to McCory becoming Governor, North Carolina had a solid reputation for environmental stewardship. This stewardship was grounded in constructive engagement between two co-equal state agencies. The Department of Commerce (DC) is the welcome mat and advocate for new and expanding businesses. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is the enforcer of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and the advocate for those impacted by the externalities of new and expanding businesses. Each agency has a noble mission that benefits the state now and into the future. Pure environmentalism can hamper the creation of economic opportunity and job growth. Pure economic development can permanently scar a landscape, cause harm to people’s health, and eradicate qualities of life and community that attract business.

Therefore, a balance must be struck between competing interests and missions. The role of the EC and DENR are to prepare their best briefs and constructively engage interested parties, and the public at large, to help determine this balance, while articulating the trade-offs that inevitably occur when competing interests interact.

The DENR, prior to Governor McCrory had a straightforward mission statement that supported this effort: “To conserve and protect North Carolina’s natural resources and to maintain an environment of high quality by providing valuable services that consistently support and benefit the health and well-being of all citizens of our state.”

When McCory became Governor the DENR revised its mission statement to fundamentally change its role. The changes are significant and deserve attention from anyone, regardless of party, who cares about science and conservation. This revision, by new DENR Secretary, John Skvarla (McCrory’s appointee), marks a terrible change in direction for a state department, but has received only limited media attention.

The new mission statement alters the very definition of science. The DENR document now tells us that science “contains diversity of opinion” and “all public programs and scientific conclusions must be reflective of input from a variety of legitimate, diverse and thoughtful perspectives.”

Not so. Science is not based on “opinion” or “thoughtful perspectives.” Science contains a body of knowledge arrived at through testing and experimentation. Ironically, this is what conservative thought -- in politics and policy in general -- has always emphasized. Now we are told any perspective, regardless of its having been tested, deserves equal time.

Second, the new mission statement emphasizes “cost-benefit analysis” in environmental policy. The damages caused by bad environmental policy are not calculable in immediate terms in the same way an actuary determines how much a new car depreciates when it leaves the lot. Environmental damage is long term and affects not only the resources available to future generations, but also our national heritage. There can be no “cost-benefit” consideration of the Great Smoky Mountains, Outer Banks beaches, or Civil War historic sites protected from mining, foresting, or other development. How many dollars is it worth to take your family to these parks? What is the true value of sites that define our state and national identity?

Third, the McCrory administration redefines the DENR as a “service organization.” It is not. The Department is a regulatory body charged with enforcing laws, including the federal rules of the Environmental Protection Agency. The clear implication of the McCrory version suggests nullification of federal law -- that the DENR will “service” the political choices of the Governor, not enforce the law. Governor McCrory and Secretary Skvarla should remember that the DENR’s environmental regulatory powers are delegated to them by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, President Bush’s Republican appointee, stripped this delegation from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, and directly managed the state’s enforcement process, to prevent the state agency from becoming a doormat for developers. This could be the remedy in North Carolina should the McCrory/Skvarla vivisection of environment law and science continues.

Pat McCrory -- who has portrayed himself as a moderate -- is sending dangerously extreme signals to the new conservative radicals who want pander to anti-conservationist extremists.

The two authors here have different political perspectives, but value the real conservative legacy of responsible governance and custodianship of our planet. These new radical “conservatives” (we use quotation marks intentionally) should not be allowed to highjack that legacy. In the words of this new DENR mission statement we detect a highjacking in progress, emblematic of the larger self-destruction of the real conservative movement.

Scot Faulkner was Personnel Director for Reagan-Bush and the 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.

Republican Dilemma

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

What happens when a Republican candidate is damaged goods? This is the dilemma facing Republicans in the May 7 special election for South Carolina’s 1stCongressional District. The Republican leaning district should have attracted top tier candidates, but after the primary and run off voters are confronted with the ghost of scandals past – former Governor and Representative Mark Sanford.

This is the last thing Republicans needed. Sanford clearly has moral issues; otherwise he would still be married to his first wife and mother to his four children. He is not ethical, otherwise he would not have lied to everyone about his affair, diverted state funds for personal use, and been censured by a 102-11 vote by the South Carolina House of Representatives. His intelligence is questionable, given everything he did to self-immolate in 2009.

Until his fantasy trip on the Appalachian Trail, which to the surprise of everyone extended all the way to Buenos Aires, Sanford was a respected fiscal conservative. Sanford was even making motions towards a presidential run in 2012. What do you do when someone you may agree with on key issues makes your skin crawl?

How could such damaged goods occur in the wake of Republicans launching their strategic rebranding? Before the GOP collapsed into an incestuous echo chamber, there was a conservative intellectual tradition centered on the ancient concept of “Ethos”. This dates to the dawn of Western Civilization and concerns right and wrong choices. Ethics is about choice. Mark Sanford and the current Republican Party is a sad collection of wrong choices.

Some Republican pundits are going through Olympic style gymnastics to justify their support of Sanford. Conservative Talk Radio and Fox News are proclaiming that Sanford’s zipper problem is very different from President Bill Clinton’s zipper problem. They are asserting that one warrants eternal ostracism while the other merits forgiveness. Ironically, in December 1998, Rep. Sanford supported the resignation of adulterous Speaker-wannabe Rep. Bob Livingston, stating, "The bottom line is that he lied under a different oath - the oath to his wife."

Sanford and Clinton are just two in a long line of politicians who are motivated by something other than their heart and mind. The list is wonderfully bi-partisan. Here is the parade of shame from just the last two years: Chris Lee (R-NY), Eric Massa (D-NY), Mark Souder (R-IN), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), and David Wu (D-OR). Mercenary cable news use adultery as a ratings boon during the scandal and then profit on the residuals. Fox hired Sanford as a paid commentator, while CNN and Current TV hired disgraced Governor Elliott Spitzer as a host. This is the antithesis of ethical public behavior. Rome's pre-eminent political thinker, Cicero, defined this as “A good man speaking well”. Cashing-in on the scandal parade is neither.

Partisan acolytes for both sides have had to respond to these sex scandals by biting their tongues and finding ways to overcome sordid details and photos. It would be refreshing to hear just one of them simply say, “Okay, he’s an immoral a##hole, but we need his vote”.

The changing world of mass social media and “Oprah-style” confessionals has altered our politics for the worse. Thankfully, there is still such a thing as indignation, founded on essentially conservative ethical principles.

We have a test case for ethics in this Special Congressional election, which may be overshadowed by the basics of power politics. Republicans want to hold onto every Congressional seat, and deprive Democrats of anything that builds momentum for the November 2014 showdown. However, losing this special election may help Republicans achieve their long term objective to reinvent and reposition themselves for 2014 and 2016. Unfortunately, a Sanford victory sets-up the embarrassing tableau of Speaker Boehner swearing him in while former mistress, Maria Belen Chapur, holds the bible. Sanford would then go on to upstage Floor debates, committee meetings, fundraisers, and rallies.

Republicans clearly are wrestling with a major dilemma - whether the short term hunger for power trumps long term reasoning. Speaker Boehner endorsed Sanford, while the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend any more money on Sanford’s behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

These observations come from the different perspectives of the two authors. We both agree that Sanford’s re-insertion into politics offends us both. It is a dilution of serious, ethical, political debate.

Scot Faulkner was Personnel Director for Reagan-Bush and the 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.

Republicans' Uncivil War

This was published in Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/republicans-uncivil-war-89696.html

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

The Republican Party is at war with itself and it is losing. For every successful Republican governor, there are Republican state legislators who embrace personally oppressive and interventionist initiatives. For every reasonable Republican member of Congress there are more who embarrass. Every compelling soundbite from Republican candidates and pundits are overwhelmed by those that repel.

It wasn’t always this way. Republicans used to be known for ending wars not starting them. Eisenhower negotiated the end of the Korea War, Nixon ended the Vietnam War, and Reagan ended the Cold War. Republicans used to be known for competent management. Truman turned to Herbert Hoover to bring order to the chaos of the New Deal. Reagan established the Grace Commission to focus on government waste and reform, while launching the Baldrige Award to provide stellar examples of leadership, organizational effectiveness, and customer service to make America more competitive. In 1995, Republicans in Congress cleaned-up the scandal-ridden mess left by decades of institutionalized corruption.

Republicans were also once known for their emphasis on science, empiricism, and environmental responsibility. Teddy Roosevelt established parks and a national ethic for conservation. Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency. Reagan led the way for private-public partnerships for historic preservation, notably the restoration of the Statue of Liberty. Eisenhower created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and started planning the moon missions. Man landed on the Moon under Nixon and dominated space with shuttles under Reagan.

Americans rewarded these policies and actions. The Reagan Revolution dominated America in the 1980s with three consecutive landslides of 489, 525, and 426 electoral votes. There was talk of the Democrats’ demise. Then something went wrong for Republicans. Terribly wrong.

Politics is about prevailing. To prevail you have to garner enough support to overcome opposition and apathy. This requires actions and rhetoric that are reasonable and inspirational. Republicans have become terrible at both. Rather than listening to the American people, they are listening to their failed paid consultants and media echo chamber.

In the late 1980’s conservatives were pioneers in new media. The end of the “Fairness Doctrine” in 1987 opened the door for radio and TV stations offering political points of view. Rush Limbaugh’s show premiered in 1988 and ushered in “conservative talk radio.” The Fox News Channel launched in 1996. MSNBC shifted to the left as a counter. On the other hand, William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” ended its 33-year reign in 1999. This shift created larger-than-life personalities that were more interested in self-promotion via hyperbole over rational discourse.

This tilt was a mixed blessing. “Firing Line” attracted approximately 32,000 viewers, but now Fox News dominates audience ratings, besting its nearest competition by 4-1 in viewers, while its personality driven shows blow-out their competitors by as much as 6-1. The conservative movement’s annual convocation, the Conservative Political Action Conference, went from a microscopic 200 attendees in the 1970’s to a major political event with over 10,000 participants being covered by all major news outlets.

While Buckley conservatives and Reagan Republicans attracted smaller real-time audiences, their ideas and discourse appealed to an ever-expanding universe across the political spectrum. On the other hand, the three million who regularly watch Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and the upwards of 15 million who listen to Limbaugh each week, are content with their solid, but stagnant universe. Republican office holders and candidates have tailored their messages and thinking to this reality, as Bill Maher says, it’s “life in the bubble.” Unfortunately, 15 million fanatical fans are dwarfed by the 130 million people who voted in 2012. Yet Republicans seem ambivalent to expanding their domain.

Another phenomenon fed this myopic Republican universe. Pro-government Democrats entered the Republican Party in the late 1970s. NeoCons were Hubert Humphrey/Scoop Jackson Cold War Democrats who fled the dovish accommodation policies of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter to rally to Reagan’s victory over rather than coexistence with anti-communism. Around this same time the TheoCons arrived. These were a mix of pro-life Democrats and Southern Democrat evangelical Christians who felt betrayed by Carter. They helped Carter get elected in 1976, only to have him promote government policies that felt like a war against religion and family values.

At first the Republican Party welcomed these refugees. The NeoCons were Cold War soul-mates, while the TheoCons aligned with the libertarians in fighting intrusive left-wing policies and regulations. However, when Reagan left office, these two groups were no longer content to be junior members of a diverse coalition. These pro-government and pro-interventionist groups saw a weak and malleable leader in George H.W. Bush. The death of powerful Republican National Committee Chairman Lee Atwater left a power vacuum within the party. The Neos and Theos marched in and took over.

A new self-perpetuating political echo chamber was in place. The naturally exclusionary Neo and Theo factions drove out or silenced the broad Reagan coalition. They espoused big government ideas, a legacy of their Democratic Party roots, which alienated core Republican constituencies and trumpeted bible-based science and morality that drove off independents and blue collar Democrats.

Fox News and conservative talk radio were more than willing to be forums and advocates for this ascendant coalition. George W. Bush, and his political Svengali, Karl Rove, embraced the Neos and Theos to cobble together a narrow victory in 2000. In exchange, Bush was willing to fight their wars and move their policies, cheered on by the ersatz conservative echo chamber. The fact that these actions contradicted decades of Republican and conservative thought seemed irrelevant to all involved.

Bush 43 added his own straw to the political camel’s back by his willingness to allow cronyism to trump competence. By promoting amateurs to bungle the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and allowing the once noble Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to make an epic mess of Hurricane Katrina relief, Bush eviscerated the long-standing Republican reputation for management competency. The Republican echo chamber remained silent to this dismal record, violating another of their core principles – holding power accountable. A Republican world view, devoid of facts and critical thinking was taking hold. Like Thelma and Louise, Republican politicians and pundits alike grasped hands and floored the gas peddle into the abyss.

Except for some stellar governors, the Republican movement has been in free fall since late 2005. Like a cancer patient on remission, the tea party-fueled 2010 election blowout offered a fleeting and aberrant reversal of fortune. It remains to be seen if Republicans can heal themselves or whether the Democrats will over-reach clearing the way for a GOP comeback by default. Either way, America’s political landscape is denuded when rational thought and competence are edged out of the picture.

Scot Faulkner was Personnel Director for the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and the 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 a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.

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.

Republican Opportunities Lost

This was published in RollCall

http://www.rollcall.com/news/faulkner_and_riehl_republican_opportunities_lost-222193-1.html?pg=1

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

Republicans are wondering how to confront President Obama’s second term “second wind”. In recent weeks, Obama has proven he is no Lame duck. His new initiatives, new appointments, and winning the word wars on the budget, have overwhelmed Republicans both in Congress and among their pundits. After ceding 789 days of political positioning to their opponents since the GOP’s 2010 victories, Republicans have now spent the first weeks of 2013 contemplating their navels while bungling opportunities to make a difference.

Only in the Republican’s parallel universe could supposedly intelligent people sift through the electoral debris of 2012 and think that their only challenge is creating better campaign ads with better media soundbites. Worse, they arrived at this epiphany after listening to political consultants, who derive their income from creating these campaign ads and soundbites. These are the same consultants who spent hundreds of millions the GOP’s money being 100% wrong in their assumptions, polls, and predictions throughout 2012.

Congressional Republicans in particular should look into the mirror to find who to blame for their current predicament.

Since decisively winning the November 2, 2010 elections, Republicans in Congress and their acolytes in the conservative media, have missed hundreds of days of opportunity to define themselves and present compelling alternative policies. The reality is that Republicans have no platform. In fact, they no longer have a coherent idea of who they are. They are also so “inbred” in their politics that they no longer see the need for making a rational case for any of their stands. There is simply no content behind their message.

The dreadful examination of Sen. Chuck Hagel is a case in point. Hectoring diatribes from fellow Republicans over the war in Iraq only perpetuate the image of conservatives unwilling to reflect on their actions in light of the facts. Never mind that as a traditional conservative, Hagel’s view on the Iraqi misadventure was much more in line with decades of conservative thinking prior to the NeoCon takeover of GOP foreign policy.

The recent Pew Survey shows Americans disapprove of Republican Congressional leadership by 66% while only 19% approved. That is a staggering 47 point negative. Gallup’s survey is equally horrific, with 25% approving and 67% disapproving for a 42 point negative gap.

These dreadful scores are only part of the problem. President Obama and Congressional Democrats are framing the Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling/Budget battle in ways highly favorable to their cause while painting Republicans into a microscopic corner. This is smart rhetorical strategy, and stands to marginalize the GOP into oblivion.

Politics often comes down to defining the terms of battle, something both parties have excelled at during different moments in history. Democrats have the upper hand at this particular moment. Republicans, even moderates (those few that remain), are now called “extremists.” Democrats, even radicals, are now called “Progressives." Government spending is now called “investment,” thanks to a spin factory gem from Bill Clinton. Spending cuts of any magnitude are dismissed as damaging to America’s economic recovery. The Republican response is either mired in bureaucratic language unknowable to normal people, or piled up with hyperpartisan rhetoric that leaves no room for compromise.

As the Hagel hearing demonstrated, Republicans have been vague about government waste and the need to cut spending. They trumpet their ideology, but ideology is not governance -- and Americans continue to see the President as more competent in that task. The problem is that the GOP never issued a meaningful indictment or offered a prosecution brief. It is also sad that Republicans refuse to admit that the bureaucracy and spending at the Pentagon are as bloated as any other department. Republicans seem to fixate on shiny objects, like rows of medals on uniforms, instead of targeting wasteful spending and management at the DOD.

Perhaps this is what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance -- Republicans are now mostly unwilling to hold serious hearings on government spending or mismanagement, because many of them blindly supported Bush-era spending boondoggles both foreign and domestic. Bereft of principle, and caught in hypocrisy of their own making, Republicans have little to stand on. The GOP did not even hold hearings on Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Waste Report, a longtime staple of reasonable oversight. Only CSPAN’s BookTV gave Coburn a proper forum to discuss his exhaustive and highly credible research on government waste.

Having one party dominate policy and legislation while the other retreats into mindless and sporadic venting of anger is unhealthy for America. Those who wish to hold power accountable, and desire a reasonable dialogue on the role and cost of government in the 21st Century, must stage an intervention. The elephant is sick and its infirmity harms all of us.

Pat McCrory's College Comments Betray Conservative Principles

By Jonathan Rielh & Scot Faulkner

Published in http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/30/2644321/pat-mccrorys-college-comments.html

Gov. Pat McCrory has made news with his recent comments on conservative talk radio, attacking liberal arts education in general and UNC-Chapel Hill in particular. In doing this, he has lit the fires of progressive academics and riled up the Fox News tea party base. With the governor’s star rising in the GOP, his comments no doubt were strategic.

They also represent a total betrayal of conservative principle.

The meltdown of the conservative movement in recent years has many causes, including an addiction to the media echo chambers of the blogosphere, talk radio and Fox News. Anti-intellectualism is another part of this new, destructive ideology. A spokesperson for this anti-intellectualism was, of course, Sarah Palin, who famously could not identify what newspapers she read. To be conservative means not reading newspapers?

Not so. As a political philosophy, conservatism is grounded in intellectual thought and deliberation. The governor’s statements about education are therefore not only counterproductive but also anti-conservative.

Ironically, the notion of colleges and universities as factories for job-performance smacks much more of leftist, socialist societies where individuals were not valued for their knowledge or perception but for their ability to perform tasks. As a philosophy, conservatism has in fact battled this idea for hundreds of years. The governor is apparently not familiar with this history. Perhaps his education was not liberal enough.

Is it not practical, in preparation for entering the workforce, to have read deeply in philosophy, cultural history, politics and literature? Those 3 a.m. debates with college roommates about these ideas produce individuals better able to obtain rewarding positions in the ever-more competitive global marketplace.

The point of a liberal arts education is to make those debates possible, to give young students a broad-based knowledge that allows them to think about matters widely and deeply, to form their own opinions and find their place in society. Only an environment that teaches the value of knowledge, not just “information,” will allow them to decide what path they wish to take and what identity to choose: liberal or conservative. Choices cannot be made without perspective.

We are proof positive. We benefited from superb liberal arts educations, one at the University of Virginia, the other at Lawrence University. In both cases, we were able to explore wide-ranging topics and were required to read deeply in topics we knew little about and have little involvement with now (from geology to astronomy). We were taught to think about matters that had little to do with the careers we would map for ourselves and to consider ourselves better for it. We also would like to think we have given back, as educators, political activists and private sector businesspeople.

We find ourselves voting for different parties, but we share a deep admiration for the conservative movement and its heritage. Not just in recent times, when intellectuals like William F. Buckley Jr. forged the coalition that produced a revolution under Ronald Reagan, but in history dating to our founders Madison, Adams and Jefferson, and tracking from there to Burke, Montesquieu and even Plato.

Would the governor have students in North Carolina schools reading technical manuals rather than these thinkers, not to mention contrarians from schools of Marxism and postmodern deconstructionists? Young conservatives need to understand the ideas they might oppose.

Turning colleges into trade schools is counterproductive as well as anti-conservative. If there is to be a revival of conservatism, which is today moribund at best, it will happen only if an educated new generation can converse with its opponents in well-informed terms.

Technocratic specialization is the enemy of democracy, which asks us to have a wide lens – a “liberal” view not sequestered within our own limited perspectives. Conservatism, properly understood, asks us to engage, not disengage.

That is the purpose of a liberal education.

Sadly, our hypermediated age leads us to place too much attention on superficial labels. Identities are formed by talking points, not principle. Leaders on the left and the right flock to media outlets whose viewers already agree with 99 percent of the “news” they are delivered. The governor is playing to that crowd.

Conservatism is grounded in a very different heritage. Democracy was founded on the principles of rhetoric – reasoned debate and exchange among citizens. This cannot occur if we eliminate liberal arts education in our public schools.

North Carolina has a proud history of supporting broad-based liberal arts education, thanks in large part to the leadership of a popular Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, who eschewed partisan politics in favor of consensus. Hunt understood that economic growth depends upon broad education, and the job growth in the Triangle is testament to this strategy.

Conservatism is in freefall. We have no successors to William F. Buckley Jr. in our midst. We will be able to nurture new conservative thinkers only if we teach our young people about the intellectual legacy that produced intellectual leaders like him.

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

How did you spend the last 806 days?

If you were a Congressional Republican prior to your Williamsburg retreat, you were doing nothing. Nothing productive, at any rate. You spent this time ceding the political landscape to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Your are waiting for an Inaugural Address to respond to, while allowing tone-deaf and clueless pollsters and lobbyists to speak for the Party.

Since decisively winning the November 2, 2010 elections, Republicans in Congress, and their acolytes in the conservative media, have made sure to miss 806 days of opportunity to define themselves and communicate a compelling alternative platform. This is not a choice; it is a reflection of political reality: They have no platform. Because they have no coherent idea of who they are. The American people sense this. Increasingly, moderates and centrists are abandoning them because of it.

The recent Pew Survey shows Americans disapprove of Republican Congressional leadership by 66% while only 19% approved. That is a staggering 47 point negative. Gallup’s survey is equally bad with 25% approving and 67% disapproving for a 42 point negative gap.

These dreadful scores are only part of the problem. During the last 806 days President Obama and Congressional Democrats have framed the Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling/Budget battle in ways highly favorable to their cause while painting Republicans into a microscopic corner. This is smart rhetorical strategy, to be sure.

Politics often comes down to defining the terms of the battle, something both parties have excelled at during different moments in history. The Democrats are the current masters of rhetoric. Democrats, even radicals, are now called “Progressives”. Government spending is now called “investment,” thanks to a spin factory gem from Bill Clinton. Spending cuts of any magnitude are dismissed as damaging to America’s economic recovery. There is also the unchallenged assertion that there have already been more than enough budget cuts, but no where near enough tax increases.

Our current Republicans tilt at windmills and straw men, assailing the “Main Stream Media” (which excludes, of course, the most popular cable network, Fox News) for their rout in the budget battle. They continue to embrace the parallel universe of Fox and conservative Talk Radio asserting that these “news” outlets are being drowned out by the “mainstream.” Never has Orwellian double-talk been more obvious -- or harmful to political discourse.

During the last 806 days, Republicans have been annoyingly vague about government waste and the need to cut spending. They trumpet their ideology, but ideology is not governance -- and Americans continue to see the President as more competent in that task. The problem is that the GOP never issued a meaningful indictment or offered a prosecution brief. Just saying there is waste does not make it so. Endlessly repeated talking points about “limited government” do not inspire, do not confer confidence, and do not offer hope to a still struggling nation.

While Republicans remain unfocused, the Democrats have created a multimedia echo chamber that has established memes relating to fairness and collective action. Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing but confrontational bluster. Their weak, ineffective, and mostly nonexistent defense has left them marginalized and demonized. The entire body politic suffers as a result; Democracy only functions when robust factions confront each other in rational discourse. The authors here have differing political views on important matters, but are of one mind on this central point.

Republicans could have made a difference. Starting on November 3, 2010, they could have been building their case.   Every time a Republican was in front of a camera or microphone they could have issued compelling examples about non-performing government contractors getting billions in bonuses, about hundreds of billions more sitting unused in countless agency accounts, or cited any one of the thousands of reports documenting waste published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 73 Inspector General offices.  This would have put forward a viable vision of governance that differs from the status quo. This is complicated, of course, because the status quo is not just the last four years, but also the eight under Republicans who grew government and spent America into oblivion.

Perhaps this is what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance -- Republicans are now mostly unwilling to hold hearings on government spending or mismanagement, because many of them blindly supported Bush-era spending boondoggles both foreign and domestic. Bereft of principle, and caught in hypocrisy of their own making, Republicans have little to stand on. The GOP did not even hold hearings on Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Waste Report, a longtime staple of reasonable oversight. Only CSPAN’s BookTV gave Coburn a proper forum to discuss his exhaustive and highly credible research on government waste.

Reestablishing Republican relevance must include atoning for embracing wasteful spending during the Bush era. In one amazing example of “Bush party line”, Republicans on the House Oversight panel minimized $6 billion in hundred dollar bills vanishing from the Bagdad Airport while Democrats raised concerns about the money being stolen and possibly funding terrorism. Republicans lose credibility when they are more concerned about who is doing damaging things instead of the damaging thing itself. Waste is waste; corruption is corruption; no matter who is doing it. To say anything different is abandoning your moral core.

Republicans met in Williamsburg to develop a strategy for the coming budget battles, and unfortunately it looks like more showmanship instead of statesmanship. They should have spent this time finding their minds and souls.