The Power of an Idea and the Perils of Camelot

“All men are created equal.”  As the tip of Thomas Jefferson’s quill lifted from the parchment of the Declaration of Independence, the idea of equality was forever sewn into the fabric of the American experiment, espoused in a founding document for the first time in world history.  It was unique in its simplicity, radical in its uniqueness.  

Centuries later, the idea of equality has not been fully achieved.  Racial tensions persist, gender discrimination continues, and anti-gay policies progress.  The 2008 election of Barack Obama, however, was a turning point in American history, an opportunity for the bigoted bias of generations past to be forever doomed to the ash heap of history. 

Obama is the quintessential American success story.  The ability of an African-American man, born in Hawaii and raised by a single parent, to achieve educational, financial and political success is a testament to Jefferson’s foundational idea of equality, and to how far we’ve come as a nation.  Obama embodies the American dream. 

As a presidential candidate in 2008, he campaigned as the “post-racial” and “post-partisan” candidate.  He was going to bring a new level of civility and equity to both the political process and the American system of governance.  As then-Senator Obama stated in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, “What struck me [while running for the US Senate] was how much of what they believed seemed to hold constant across race, region, religion, and class.  I told them that government couldn’t solve all their problems.  But with a slight change in priorities we could make sure every child had a decent shot at life and meet the challenges we faced as a nation.”

It is said in politics that you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.  In Obama’s case, the poetry of the campaign—the promises of post-partisanship and the ideas of hope and change—attempted to implement Jefferson’s fundamental idea of equality.  But they were, unfortunately, misguided.  In many ways, the idea that most characterizes President Obama’s rise to power comes not from the founding of the American Republic, but rather the founding of an American dynasty. 

After the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963, his wife Jackie gave an interview in which she referred to the Kennedy Presidency as an “American Camelot,” a time of progress and peace, honor and valor.  The term “American Camelot” has come to signify the Kennedy dynasty as a whole: the most powerful, picturesque, and influential family in American history.  But like the legends of old, where the principles and values of the Round Table were constantly subverted by the humanity of its occupants, the American Camelot also attempted to cloak the mortal failings of the Kennedys in a veil of dynastic tranquility and a manufactured image of serenity. 

The Kennedys are great Americans who have served their country for generations and continue to do so, but they often depended on their image to maintain their reputation in spite of their personal failings.  Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was a testament to the success of image politics.  He was portrayed as the candidate of all people, uninhibited by the backwards tensions of race, gender, and even party.  But the prose of his governance has been lacking in true substance, lacking in the practical consummation of Jefferson’s idea of equality.

While Obama is not the socialist his critics rail against, his political philosophy is centered in the belief that the government can mandate equality, success, and social progress.  He emphasizes the role the government plays in stimulating the economy, lifting the less fortunate out of poverty, and saving the environment.  In doing so, he has demonized corporations and the rich while idolizing community organizations and unions. 

The Camelot-like image of hope and change has given way to a statist philosophy of governance.  His intentions are valiant but the increase in government spending, bureaucracy, and unnecessary regulation actually hinder the idea of equality espoused in the Declaration of Independence.  As Jefferson stated, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government.” 

In reality, no presidency more clearly demonstrated true equality than that of Ronald Reagan.  Reagan should not be deified or idolized like he is by many on the right.  He and his presidency were flawed – Iran-Contra and the response to the AIDS crisis come to mind.  But his vision of the American dream and the power of the individual transformed America from the malaise-ridden stagnation of the Carter years to the enterprising boom of the 80s and 90s. 

The equality that Jefferson envisioned is only achieved when the power of the individual is unleashed and the entrepreneurial nature of the American people unhindered.  As Reagan stated, “Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success – only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, prosperous, progressive and free.”  To that I would add, only then is true equality of opportunity achieved.  

We as Americans must be wary of the Camelot-esqueFinancial Times, the budget “stabilizes our debt at 76 percent of GDP – ‘roughly double historic levels.’”  This timid incrementalism is unacceptable.

But the greater failure is the imposed stagnation of the individual spirit.  As the Obama Administration imposes their liberal ideology, the power of individual entrepreneurship is squelched and the opportunity for equality hindered. 

In 1984, Reagan said “Recognizing the equality of all men and women, we are willing and able to lift the weak, cradle those who hurt, and nurture the bonds that tie us together as one nation under God.”  The Reagan Revolution transformed America as we know it.  To solve the daunting challenges facing us we need another revolution of equal or greater strength and boldness.  But it should be a revolution based on the idea of equality and individual enterprise rather than the cursory image of Camelot.  

Thoughts From CPAC

The crowd’s reaction was mixed.  Boos and angry shouts of “No!” clashed with cheers of vindication as Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference Straw Poll.  This three-day conference—the largest and most famous of its kind, with over 10,000 participants—is an opportunity for conservatives to join together in small-government, traditional values brotherhood, but is it good for the conservative movement, and is it good for the country?

The mixed reaction to Romney’s straw poll victory was indicative of the nature of today’s conservatism.  Based on his policy positions, he would probably be the most conservative presidential nominee in recent history.  He is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-traditional marriage, strong on immigration, strong on defense, espouses austerity, the Ryan Budget, and the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.  And yet, he is inadequate for some conservatives. 

The conference was chock-full of varying personalities, but not varying opinions – I’ll get to that later.  It involved journalists, like Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas, giving insightful analysis and thoughtful recommendations for future action.  It included former political figures, like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, engaging in unabashed self-promotion in an effort to maintain their grip of some sliver of the conservative population and to sell more books.  It also involved current political figures, like Senators Rand Paul and Jon Cornyn, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, clearly and passionately espousing the principles of conservatism in a way that reflected positively on themselves, their states and their cause. 

The general drift of the proceedings, however, was an unflinching, unequivocal, and stunningly tactless bombardment of President Obama and the policies of the last three years.  Obama was described as a radical, a socialist, a failed president, hater of the rich, hater of the poor, and – my favorite – an argument in favor of contraception.  Speakers and participants alike railed against welfare (which breeds dependency), Social Security and Medicare (which are bankrupting the country), gun-control (the essence of liberal overreach), and gay marriage (disgusting).  In some of these areas their points are valid, but the level of anger and, at times, heartlessness with which the participants viewed these issues is a recipe for electoral disaster. 

Which brings us back to Romney.  For all his conservative bona fides, many conservatives don’t believe he’s gone far enough, or is passionate enough.  Foster Friess, a wealthy investment banker and Santorum supporter, introduced the former Pennsylvania Senator and began with a joke: “So a Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar and the bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt.’”  In his remarks, Santorum argued that Romney disqualified himself from the Republican primary race by passing and continuing to defend Romneycare, a Massachusetts health care reform bill with many similarities to Obamacare.  Gingrich called Romney “timid” and “moderate.”  Without using his name, Texas Governor Rick Perry spelled out the conservative dissolution: “We do the American people no great service if we replace the current embodiment of Big Government with a lukewarm version of the same.” 

Current conservatism views Mitt Romney, whose own policies would put Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley’s to shame, as a “lukewarm version” of Big Government ideology.  Is this viewpoint good for the conservative cause or good for the country?  I don’t think so.  And this attitude applies to my larger point about CPAC itself. 

As I walked through the halls and the lobbies of the DC Marriott, two things struck me.  First, I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of otherness and isolation that hovered over the hotel like a heavy fog.  The three-day conference progressed completely devoid of outside influence and alternative opinion.  It was as if the conservative movement was acting out their own version of Gilligan’s Island, stranded on the sandy beaches of small-government philosophy, bolstered in their conservative camaraderie, and surrounded by the seas of liberalism and the circling sharks of the Obama Administration.  They must act in unison if they want to survive.  Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes the phenomenon as a Matrix-like “consensual hallucination,” an unwavering, psychological adherence to their image of the political world.  But the lack of disagreement and dissent will only weaken the conservative movement and deter its success. 

Writers such as David Brooks, who has written about the political skill and admirable leadership qualities of President Obama, or Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative blogger who opposed the war in Iraq and the torture of detainees, are not welcome at CPAC.  Politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been willing to compromise and work across the aisle, are also not welcome in more conservative circles.  These figures are viewed as disloyal to the cause of conservatism.  But as Edward R. Murrow stated, “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.  When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.”  In this case, the death of loyal opposition within the conservative movement is a precursor to the death of conservatism as we know it. 

The second thing that struck me is a result of the first.  Without dissent and debate, the participants of CPAC carry the cross of conservatism with a biblical surety and unwavering passion.  The result is a myopic vision of America and its political landscape.  Participants immediately dismiss welfare and deem its recipients lazy, manipulative malcontents without even considering the plethora of factors (low education spending, lack of law enforcement, poor health care and health education) which deprive millions of the opportunities we enjoy.  They dismiss any type of gun-control as a massive overreach of statist government without considering the thousands who die every year from gun deaths.  They dismiss what they see as the homosexual perversion of marriage without even considering the implications of personhood for the LGBT community.

In many ways, their positions are fundamentally sound.  The welfare system is flawed and does, in some cases, breed dependence.  Universal gun-control does infringe on the rights of those who hold their second-amendment rights dear to their heart.  Gay marriage may negatively affect the fundamental values of our society.  But the way the conservative movement carries itself, most clearly portrayed in the three-day proceedings of CPAC, lacks tact, nuance and the ability to compromise – all valued skills in politics and in the basic art of persuasion. 

Mitt Romney may not be the most conservative candidate in the Republican field.  He may lack a certain fluency in conservatism (most likely the result of being a result-focused pragmatist for much of his life in the private sector).  But a Republican Party that decides Romney is not a conservative at all is a Republican Party doomed to failure.  And a conservative movement that lacks nuance and rigorous internal debate does nothing but harm itself and the country at large.