Welcome to Carolina Journal Online’s Friday Interview. Today the John Locke Foundation’s Mitch Kokai discusses conservatism with Weekly Standard editor and Fox News commentator Bill Kristol. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio (click here to find the station near you).
Kokai: Well let’s start with this. Your colleague Fred Barnes started a recent article with this description of a typical conservative, “Supporting small government with low taxes. Traditional values, such as the sanctity of life, and a hawkish foreign policy.” Is that a good place for us to start?
Kristol: It is, and I think it’s also good just to start with history, and who is the most famous and prominent and successful conservative in the last 50 years? Ronald Reagan, one of the great presidents of the United States and someone all conservatives look up to. And what did he stand for? He stood for cutting taxes and trying to reduce the size of government, or at least stop the continued growth of government on the domestic side, a hawkish and informed foreign policy that sought to defend or promote liberty around the world, and the defense of the traditional family and the sanctity of life and traditional values, and also a commitment to a kind of an American patriotism. So I think if you admire Reagan then you’re a conservative.
Kokai: After the first Bush administration, the Clinton years, and now into the second Bush administration, just how much of that Reagan brand of conservatism is still having a sway over politics?
Kristol: I think a lot. You know, a lot of people thought in the ‘90s and even in the late ‘80s after President Reagan left office — I was there in the first Bush administration — there was a sense of, “Well, okay. President Reagan did a good job for his time,” but the Cold War had ended and tax cuts had gone into effect, and now it was time for a different brand of conservatism or new policies or maybe Reagan was just a guy we look back on fondly and with nostalgia. I think what the 21st century so far proves is that Reagan remains an extremely important guide for our time. Foreign policy, obviously the threat of Islamic radicalism, is different from Soviet Communism. But the principles Reagan embraced — strong defense, a message of strength and, “Don’t mess with us,” to the world, but also a commitment to advancing liberty and defending democracy around the world — Reagan’s foreign policy remains very relevant today. I think his economic policies remains very relevant today: Bush cut taxes, we’ve had good economic growth. Europeans didn’t cut taxes and they’ve had very slow economic growth.
And on the traditional values sorts of issues, again lots of sophisticated people said, “Well that’s kind of in the past,” but the more you look at the world, the more you look at social science evidence, the more you look at common sense, the traditional family and the respect for life and the respect of American traditions turns out to be the best thing for us and our kids most of the time.
Kokai: The conventional wisdom has seemed to be the first Bush administration was maybe Reagan-light, or not quite Reagan, and that President Bush has been more supportive of those principles, but he’s not the same guy.
Kristol: I think he has been more supportive of the principles, but A: The principles changed 15 years later obviously, or they didn’t change, but they changed in their implementation. And B: He’s not the same guy, and he’s got different strengths from Reagan and also different limitations I would say.
Kokai: So one of the things that you’re looking at very closely is the future of conservatism. What should we see on the forefront?
Kristol: I think the future looks pretty good, you know? I mean conservatism has been counted out many times. Back in the ‘50s it seemed like a hopeless quest when Bill Buckley started National Review 50 years ago. With Reagan, the speech for Goldwater in ’64, his campaign in ’76, the losing presidential efforts, it looked like, “Well, the conservative movement would never win electorally.” Then came the ‘80s and the successful Reagan presidency, the ’94 takeover of Congress, and at each stage of course there have been setbacks and one wave crests and recedes a little bit and there are some defeats, but what strikes me really, if you step back and look at the 50 years, is how strong and so permanent the conservative message has turned out to be: Being strong in the world, supporting traditional values, economic growth based on tax cuts and limiting government. Those are as relevant in 2006 as they were in 1956 or 1986.
And so I think the conservative future is strong and promising. That doesn’t mean that you can’t lose elections in 2006 or in 2008 obviously. And I think tactically there are some real challenges for the Republican majority in Congress and probably for the next Republican presidential candidate. The Bush administration has had some tough times, but I’m optimistic about conservatives.
Kokai: Now, we know that over the years there has been an alliance of conservatives in both parties, but do we see that in the future only one of the parties is more likely to have all the conservatives?
Kristol: That’s certainly been the trend over the last 30, 40 years. One of the biggest facts about American politics today is the movement of conservatives to the Republican Party, the movement of liberals to the Democratic Party, the exclusion, to some degree, of conservatives to the Democratic Party, and to some degree the choice of liberals to leave the Republican Party. So the parties have become more ideological. It’s a good thing and a bad thing. In some ways you’d like to have more, and perhaps cross-party, cooperation that was possible when the parties were less distinct. On the other hand, in a way there’s a kind of accountability now and voters do get the sense they’re voting for people they really agree with, not just for a party label. So it cuts both ways, but for now at least it looks to me as if the future of conservatism is in the Republican Party.
Kokai: We have tended to see that the party in power, Democrat or Republican, runs into scandals, some of them involved with the process of governing. The Republicans are running into this right now. Does that hurt the conservative cause to have — because Republicans are the party in power and do have some sort of scandals involved with the government — that that hurts the conservative cause, or do you think it makes much difference?
Kristol: Well, sure it hurts in the short term, and I think Republicans in Congress are at some risk in 2006, partly because of the scandals, partly because of the sense that they haven’t controlled spending, partly just because of a sense when you’re in power for a decade people start to blame you for everything. You don’t get much credit for anything. Conservatives are a little depressed. The Republicans haven’t stuck to conservative principles. Other voters might just look at some program like the prescription drug benefit and say, “Well it’s not working very well. Let’s blame the Republican member of Congress that voted for it.” So I think Republicans are some risk in the short term. Now, I don’t think longer term it makes that much difference probably. There will be a fresh presidential candidate in 2008. He won’t have anything to do, presumably, or she won’t have anything to do, with Jack Abramoff or congressional scandals. So I think these things do come and go, but they can have a short-term effect.
Kokai: Speaking of 2008, just how important is it for this Republican candidate to be someone whom the conservatives view as a strong conservative and not just someone there in the middle?
Kristol: Yeah, I think it is important that the candidate be a strong conservative, with the caveat that one generation of strong conservatives isn’t identical to another. And if national security becomes the dominant issue, it’s conceivable that people might be less, put less weight on certain aspects of the conservative agenda or if other issues become central. I think national security and the courts, when you think about 2008, those are the two issues that leap out to me. You know there are interesting questions of economic policy and health care, but when you really get it down to it, it’s likely in 2008 that the next president will tip the balance on the Supreme Court one way or the other, and of course the next president will continue, will have the task of continuing to fight this war on terror across the board and deal with the threat of Islamic radicalism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And I think on those two issues conservatives will want to see a strong voice and a strong advocate for their principles.
Kokai: Looking ahead 15, 20, 25 years, what’s conservatism going to look like then?
Kristol: That’s a tough, tough question, and I think in American politics it’s tough enough to look at, you know, five or 10 weeks or months let alone five or 10 or 15 to 20 years. I guess I think, on principle though, it’s not that different, I don’t think conservatism will have abandoned the defense of the family or the defense of life. I don’t think conservatism will have abandoned the notion that American strength and leadership is crucial to the peace of the world. So I think there will be particular challenges. The baby boom generation retiring, advising and revamping entitlements, those sorts of things. But I think conservative principles are in pretty good shape, not just for the short term, but really for the longer term.