      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Will Conservatives Ever Be Happy? main page    Transcript for: Will Conservatives Ever Be Happy?ANNOUNCER: Funding for Think Tank is provided by the T. Rowe Price Associates, an investment management firm providing mutual funds, brokerage services, and retirement plan services. T. Rowe Price, invest with confidence, T. Rowe Price Investment Services Incorporated.We’re Pfizer, we’re looking for the cures of the future, spending about $4-1/2 billion a year in search of new medicines for the 21st Century. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, and the Dodge Jones Foundation. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. Republicans, the more conservative of the two major parties have more political power than ever before. A Republican occupies the White House, Republicans control both houses of Congress, seven of nine supreme court justices were appointed by Republicans. At the state level Republicans hold 29 out of 50 governorships, and control more legislatures than the Democrats. You might think that on this inauguration weekend conservatives would be saying, they never had it so good. Are they? To find out, Think Tank talks to three panelists of the right: Todd Lindberg, editor of Policy Review; Adam Wolfson, executive editor of The Public Interest; and David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, and author of Libertarianism, A Primer. The topic before the house, will conservatives ever be happy, this week on Think Tank. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: In 1981 conservatives celebrated the Reagan revolution, when Republicans took over Congress in 1994 the joyous revolution belonged to Newt Gingrich. Now, the Republicans assume leadership with little of that fanfare, and under the banner of compassionate conservatism, a term which is at best not yet fully understood. While the right gave George W. Bush strong support during the campaign, many conservatives are on guard to see what direction the administration takes. Bush’s agenda does contain many ideas that conservatives have recently argued for, like school vouchers, support for faith-based organizations, and the partial privatization of Social Security. But, will President Bush follow through in the face of intense pressure from both inside and outside his own party? The field of political battle is now covered by the fog of war. Has the country really moved to the right, or have conservatives moved to the center? President Clinton supported welfare reform, Republicans support prescription drug benefits. What’s going on? Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. Here it is, inauguration weekend, the joy and rapture. You guys -- your party seems to own the whole of the political terrain, and I hear very little joy and rapture. What’s the problem, David Boaz? MR. BOAZ: Well, I think in the first place the fact is the election was basically a tie, despite the way you summed it up at the beginning everything is awfully close, and to a lot of conservatives and Libertarians the Clinton administration was so appalling that we would have expected a strong electoral rejection of the Clinton-Gore administration. That didn’t happen. And I think one reason for that is that both parties are still coming to grips with the twin legacy that shapes current politics, which is the social revolution of the ’60s, and the free market revolution of the ’80s. And I think the Republicans still have a way to go on dealing with the social revolution. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Adam, why isn’t -- you’re not so happy. I’ve been reading your stuff. MR. WOLFSON: I think one reason I might not be happy, and why other conservatives might not be happy is I think we really don’t yet know what George W. Bush is all about, and we really don’t know what compassionate conservatism is all about. I had a few ideas, but we’ll find out. MR. WATTENBERG: Todd, I think you’re a little happier than these mugs, is that right? MR. LINDBERG: Well, I think I probably am, this is a gloom-fest, because let’s look at the big picture here. We find ourselves essentially the most important, strongest power in the world with no substantial competitor. MR. WATTENBERG: We the United States, not we the Republican Party? MR. LINDBERG: No, thank you. In addition, I think what we’ve seen over the past decade can fairly be characterized as the triumph of liberal capitalism, democratic capitalism. MR. WATTENBERG: Liberal in the old sense. MR. LINDBERG: In the old sense, yes. And that said, I think things are looking pretty good. And not withstanding that we don’t know exactly how George W. Bush is going to govern, I don’t seen him doing a lot to upset either of those two particular apple carts. MR. WATTENBERG: Isn’t part of it also that the first President Bush was somewhat of a disappointment to conservatives in that he did not seem to have a compass that said, here’s where we’re going. He was described, I think Bill Schneider described him as an inbox president, whereas Reagan was sort of an outbox president. Is that what some of the nervousness is about President George W. Bush? MR. BOAZ: That’s certainly some of the nervousness, and I don’t know whether we know whether his son is a chip off the old block. One of the interesting things about George W. Bush is he has less track record than most presidents do coming to the White House. So we have less of a sense of what he’s really going to be like. I do think that on a -- MR. WATTENBERG: Let me just interrupt you. I was just reading something about the Civil War, one president who had substantially less experience than George W. Bush was Abraham Lincoln. MR. BOAZ: That’s right, and so my point is not necessarily that he’ll be unsuccessful, but simply that it’s hard to predict. It would have been hard to predict what Abraham Lincoln would do, too. MR. WATTENBERG: And somebody would say, and you’re no Abraham Lincoln, which is fair enough. MR. BOAZ: Exactly. I do think you can look at Bush’s campaign, and although there are things that I wish he had not done, including talking about prescription drugs and more federal role in education, he did stick to dealing with Social Security through some sort of privatization, which -- MR. WATTENBERG: Which you as a Libertarian like. MR. BOAZ: Which I think is a great idea, and which has been called the third rail, and he dealt with it. He stuck to his proposal for a big tax cut. He did talk about the faith-based organizations getting involved in social services, which I have more of a problem with. But, I think he may have a set of principles that he does intend to stick with. MR. WOLFSON: One reason we have a question about George W. Bush is I think when Reagan came to power that was a -- people had a sense that that was a genuine victory for capital C conservatism. Reagan had a long record of being a conservative, he was closely identified with movement of conservatism. And of course, he came to office with a mandate, he had a very large popular victory. Bush has neither of those two things. Now, on the other hand, I think compassionate conservatism does have some real advantages, and he has brought, I think, two things to this debate, which I think no other conservative has. One is I think compassionate conservatism is a way of dealing with the nation’s urban problems. For the first time, I think, Republicans can say they have an urban agenda, which is very important considering that he didn’t do very well, and Republicans don’t do very well in cities. And the second thing I think he’s achieved with compassionate conservatism is a way of addressing the social issues, a way of addressing the culture wars, which is not so threatening in the way that, say, Pat Buchanan was. MR. WATTENBERG: Now, David, just talking about splits in conservatism, you don’t want him messing around with social issues? MR. BOAZ: Well, that’s right. And I think there’s a fundamental question as to what conservatism is in a country that was founded in liberal revolution. If conservative means defending the Declaration and the Constitution, I’m all for it. But, if conservatism means this sort of attempt to legislate morality and impose an idealized version of the ’50s on people, then I’m against that. And I do think -- MR. WATTENBERG: For example, I mean, let’s get a little more specific than this sort of idealized version of the ’50s. What do you think they’re talking about? MR. BOAZ: The notion the Republicans have been seen out front too often -- I agree with what Todd said at the beginning. That we have the most vibrant, dynamic, exciting culture in the history of the world. And I may have put too much emphasis on that for Todd. But, I think that’s important. And I think Americans see it that way. And I think that Republicans, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, maybe John Ashcroft being out there complaining about American culture are driving away the independent, moderate, new economy voters that are going to be the key to the future. And I think that’s a mistake. I think Social Security privatization, a tax cut, free trade, those are the kinds of things that pull those voters in. MR. WATTENBERG: So here’s a social conservative, here’s an economic conservative, and you’re what, both? MR. WOLFSON: In the case of the Republican Party, the main agenda line now is obviously economic, and I think that’s abundantly clear from the kind of campaign that George W. Bush ran, notwithstanding the compassionate conservative line, which seemed to suggest something else, but I think only largely indirectly. You know, the social issues stuff that the Republicans do is important to a lot of people. And it’s a major part of the Republican majority, if indeed there is a Republican majority in the country at the moment. And it would be difficult for the party explicitly, as David might prefer, to abandon some of those kinds of issues altogether. But, what’s required is essentially a way of talking about them in a relatively reassuring manner that perhaps doesn’t fully satisfy the people who are mainly concerned about that. MR. WATTENBERG: The cultural issues. And President George W. Bush, I mean, did stress he was going to change the tone of Washington. Well, you don’t -- that’s not H.R. 1 and you bring it to the Congress and say, hereby we’re going to change the tone, and this is Senate resolution 4207. I mean, you change the tone by trying to change the tone. MR. WOLFSON: Right, by talking about things differently. MR. WATTENBERG: Good luck in this particular city. MR. WOLFSON: Yes, the other thing that the Bush campaign I think demonstrates is just how -- Bush was an establishment candidate of the Republican Party. He was not an outsider, he was not a Reagan kind of figure riding in from elsewhere and trying to capture it and get it. He was anointed, in essence, several years ago by the Republican governors who thought he was their man. I think that speaks to exactly how sort of mainstream really conservative the party is now. MR. WATTENBERG: The Republican governors, near as I can determine it, are and have been the most popular group of politicians in America. And they have not been sort of your country club type Republicans. They have been modern conservatives for the most part, prepared to govern, prepared to split the difference. So you can call them the establishment, and still conservatives -- movement conservatives can claim a great victory, that they have taken over the establishment. MR. WOLFSON: That’s exactly right. I think that is the analysis, Ben. Conservatism -- conservatives used to feel somewhat alienated from the Republican Party. And now I don’t think that’s so true anymore. I think they feel like their fortunes are its fortunes. Whether that’s a good idea or not is another question. MR. BOAZ: I think that’s partly because Clinton created such a partisan divide in the country. Democrats became probably less liberal, but more totally committed to the Democratic Party. Republicans perhaps became more Republican because they had to get rid of Clinton. But, I think it may be important that George W. Bush is the first prominent Republican who is a product of the ’60s. He showed that you could go through the ’60s, be part of it, not fully but part of it, and still emerge as a responsible family man, and father at the other end. And that’s an important lesson. I think he will be good in that sense. MR. WATTENBERG: Yes, but he never embraced -- I mean, you can say he ingested something or didn’t, or smoked something. But, he never bought onto the political activism of the time. MR. BOAZ: Right. He didn’t embrace the left wing politics, which was not the most important part of the ’60s. The most important part, I think, was a cultural and social change. MR. WATTENBERG: And that’s why we can’t get Adam to smile today, is that right? That’s hard, because that’s still what’s bugging you, is that right? MR. WOLFSON: David, I think, would like to think that the country was born in 1968. But, I mean, the fact of the matter is for much of our history we did -- we didn’t have many of these problems. We didn’t have a Hollywood that produces the kinds of things that it produces. So to suggest somehow the benchmark is 1968 and everything that came after that is sort of in accord with the American tradition I think is false. And I do think there are ways of addressing these problems. I mean, Bill Bennett, who you mentioned, I think is actually very good at it. And again, coming back to George W. and compassionate conservatism, my hope is that compassionate conservatism is a way of addressing some of these issues that doesn’t scare folks away. I think it is important to find a way to talk about these things, and people sort of bring up the straw man of legislating morality. Well, to a certain extent the whole civil rights movement was an effort to legislate morality, to get people to see that all men are indeed created equal. I mean, that’s a moral truth in this country. So I think politics always involves moral questions. It’s never a question of well, we want to be strictly neutral and you’re legislating morality. I mean, there’s always -- MR. WATTENBERG: Just one moment. I want to talk to our viewers. We at Think Tank depend on your feedback to make our program better. Please email us at thinktank@pbs.org. Now, let me ask a question. The standard wisdom says that America has moved to the right, that’s what you hear and read in all the columns. And there’s obviously some truth to that. On the other hand, far less noted is that conservatism has moved toward the center. I mean, you go back to what conservatism was 40 years ago, it had some ugly aspects on the civil rights situation, it had some real problems, at least by my light. And much of that, although the Democrats still try to cast them in that role, has in fact changed on a lot of the social issues, on a lot of the racial issues, on a lot of the acceptance of a base of the safety net on the economic side. Republicans -- I’m sorry, conservatives have really become the mainstream, or moved toward the mainstream, which is why it is more attractive, and people are perceived to be moving toward the right. MR. BOAZ: It’s a dynamic process, and you’re right, on a lot of these social issues I think Republicans, conservatives, have jettisoned the elements of racism that were part of that past. And I think they’re continuing to come to terms with new social movements. MR. WATTENBERG: And they’ve jettisoned isolationism, which was part of their past. MR. BOAZ: Well, I think that’s right. Although I think that’s very much in flux. I think after the end of the Cold War we are seeing Democrats now being more interventionist, and George W. Bush saying, I want America to only intervene where it’s in our vital interests. And Democrats being more interventionist in that area. On economic terms, I think the country has moved to the right. You don’t propose the sweeping kinds of economic centralization that were popular in the ’30s, the ’60s, and Hillary thought were popular in the ’90s. MR. WATTENBERG: It has moved to the right, it moved toward more capitalism, but without eroding the safety net. MR. BOAZ: Well, that’s right. We’re not going to erode the safety net, although I think there are real problems with that. But, we are going to move toward privatizing Social Security, and giving people more personal responsibility for their wealth. MR. LINDBERG: Partially. MR. BOAZ: Probably partial, that’s right. But, that’s still a significant change, the first significant change in Social Security in 65 years. MR. LINDBERG: I think what’s really interesting about this debate is just the fact that it is taking place politically at all. And I think one of the things that has contributed to this, and the under appreciated phenomenon of the 1990s, has been the rightward march of the Democratic Party. That’s been led by Bill Clinton. It’s very much a work in progress in the Democratic Party. MR. WATTENBERG: The great mystery to many of us in the 2000 election is why Vice President Gore gave the appearance of rejecting the one legitimate legacy of President Clinton, unquestioned legacy, which was a move by the Democrats to the center, or at least a solid perception of that. And Gore by running to Bradley’s left in the primaries, and then by going after big business, and a whole string of other things sort of dissipated that legacy. I know you’ve written about the third way, and the Democratic Leadership Council, and I’m very interested in that. MR. WOLFSON: I think that Gore thought that the centrism of the party was a better established proposition nationally than ultimately it turned out to be. I think there was an assumption on that part of the Gore campaign that some of the populist rhetoric was something that was being added onto the top of what was essentially a centrist pitch. And that may have even been true. I mean, we are talking about the candidate from the traditionally leftward party running on paying down the national debt, and cutting taxes for the middle class, and a supplemental private account, you know, stock market invested to help people with their retirement. That’s not a left wing campaign. But, at the same time, I do think the message got confused. MR. WATTENBERG: I guess it was you, David, who said well, it was a very close election, and we actually lost the popular vote, and we had expected a big vote. That set of numbers I rattled off in the set up piece, it’s not just the presidency. You know, as recently as six years ago there had been a 50-year run of Democrats controlling the House of Representatives. Well, the Republicans still control the House of Representatives, and most remarkably you now have a majority of, not by much, but by some, of the state legislatures Republican, and a big majority, if you look at states where both houses of the legislature and the governor are controlled by Republicans, it’s much greater than the converse figure for the Democrats, which means that they can reapportion the seats after the 2000 Census to make lots of good tactical decisions for the Republicans. Compared to what you had, say, when Bill Clinton took office this has been a tidal shift. MR. BOAZ: You’re right. There’s been a slow move toward the Republicans being a majority party. But, you mentioned the electoral college, one of the big issues, I think, is whether Florida is, in fact, part of the Republican electoral base or not. And it may be that because of the Hispanic vote, the immigrant vote, the suburban vote, even the rich people’s vote has been trending away from the Republicans. It’s not as clear a majority as it ought to be. MR. WOLFSON: It’s very interesting to look at the numbers, and these were actually put out by Carlin Bowman at AEI, who voted for Gore and who voted for Bush. I mean, married women with children voted overwhelmingly for Bush. Regular church goers voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and the opposite for Gore. Of course, the good old gender gap. I mean, this tells you something about the divisions in the country and kind of the nature of Bush’s appeal, and Gore’s appeal. Bush has got to keep in mind who voted for him. MR. WATTENBERG: Let’s just go around the room, and play some speculative games. Let’s look ahead for two years or four years. How is it going to work out, what do you think of George W. Bush, and where he’s headed, and what are we going to end up with? MR. LINDBERG: Well, he has the advantage of having rather low expectations greet his arrival in Washington. I think that works to his advantage. There’s a number of issues that he can bring forward in which he can attract Democratic Party support, including tax cutting, probably his education plan. And I think that if he does that, and builds on those successes there’s reason to think that he can have a successful administration. MR. WATTENBERG: And moving in an evolutionary conservative direction? MR. LINDBERG: I think that’s probably where the Congress is, and I think that’s probably where he wants to go. And I do think that’s going to be true pretty much throughout his Cabinet and into the agencies. MR. WATTENBERG: With Newt Gingrich’s problem, the extra consonant that it was revolutionary conservative not evolutionary conservative. Right. I think it was the expectation that victory would be accompanied by your opponents concession, and admission of defeat. And that never happens in politics. MR. WATTENBERG: Certainly, if you don’t control the presidency. How’s it going to work, Adam? MR. WOLFSON: I agree with what Todd said. I would add another thing. I think that it’s very important for Bush to make sure he doesn’t lose in his first year. So he’s got to pick his shots carefully. I think one thing he should think about is missile defense and pulling out of the ABM Treaty. That’s something he can do as president, and again, it would be wildly popular among the American public. Let the left make the argument that we should leave our cities undefended. I mean, I think if he chooses his positions carefully what he goes for I think he can be successful in his first year or two, and that will help him in the next two. MR. WATTENBERG: David, how is it going to go? MR. BOAZ: I think there’s a good chance that Bush will deliver some tax relief, probably not as much as the country needs, but it will be popular, that he will make progress toward partial privatization of Social Security, that he will give the Republican Party a new, more inclusive face, and that all of those things will lead to Republicans doing better. But, I think one thing the country is really suffering from is a lack of a forceful, articulate, conservative leader for limited government. From 1960 to 1980 you had Goldwater and Reagan leading a political movement based on what they talked about as liberty, limited government, and traditional values. I think you don’t have that leader today, and I hope one will emerge, because I think the country needs that kind of forceful articulation of that point of view. MR. WATTENBERG: George W. Bush says he’s for all those things. MR. BOAZ: I would not call him a forceful, articulate leader on behalf of limited government. MR. WATTENBERG: Yet. MR. BOAZ: Not yet, not likely. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Thank you, Adam Wolfson, Todd Lindberg, and David Boaz, and thank you. Please, remember to send us your comments via email, and liberals at ease. We will soon be doing a program about the future of liberalism. For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our show better. Please send your questions and comments to New River Media, 1219 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036, or email us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBS Online at pbs.org. And please let us know where you watch Think Tank. This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content. Funding for Think Tank is provided by the T. Rowe Price Associates, an investment management firm providing mutual funds, brokerage services, and retirement plan services. T. Rowe Price, invest with confidence, T. Rowe Price Investment Services Incorporated. We’re Pfizer, we’re looking for the cures of the future, spending about $4-1/2 billion a year in search of new medicines for the 21st Century. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, and the Dodge Jones Foundation. (End of program.) Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |