Better Late Than Never for Fred Thompson

I was not a Fred Thompson supporter in the 2008 Presidential primary, instead thinking that Mitt Romney was the best choice given his business leadership credentials and smaller government ideas. However, Mr. Thompson was published on the editiorial page of the Wall Street Journal on May 23 and had he penned his comments prior to the South Carolina primary, I would have had to seriously consider supporting him. Entitled, “The Death of Conservatism is Greatly Exaggerated,” the editorial opens with comments on the recent Congressional losses by conservatives and states that the revival of the conservative cause “will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes.”

Unfortunately, I’m not sure the trap of election year quick fixes can be avoided by those who seek to maintain power at all costs even if it means doling out funds to everyone who has his hand out. As we saw in the years of Republican control up until 2006, even Republicans will grow government until the electorate turns over the tables and throws the money changers out of the temple.

It seems that over the last decade Republicans have lost their conservative credentials and have bought into the fallacy that government programs can solve every problem. Because the Republicans have been ineffective at reducing government when they promised they would and instead grew government, the American people seem to have decided that bigger government is the only option offered by either party. At least the Democrats have the decency to say openly that they are in fact for bigger government to solve the issues of the day.

In his editorial, Mr. Thompson goes on to say:

"Some conservatives try to avoid philosophical confrontation with liberals, often urging solutions that would expand the government while rationalizing that the expansion would be at a slightly slower rate.
This strategy simply has not worked. Conservatives should stay true to their principles and remember:
- Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. There are no short-term fixes without longer term consequences.
- In a free and dynamic country with social mobility, there will be great opportunity but also economic disparity, especially if the country has liberal immigration policies and a high divorce rate.
- An education system cannot overcome the breakdown of the family, and the social fabric that surrounds children daily.
- Free markets, not an expanding and more powerful government, are the solution to today's problems. Many of these problems, such as health-care costs, energy dependency and the subprime mortgage crisis, were caused in large part by government policies.
It's not that conservatives today no longer believe in the validity of these principles. They just find it difficult to stand strong when the political winds are blowing so hard against them."

Why is it that conservatives have lost the will to fight? Is it because there is no leadership for the conservative movement on the national level in the Executive Branch? So many elected officials who purport to be conservatives either have decided that it is easier to simply point the finger across the aisle and blame the other party for the lack of solutions or are afraid to admit that conservative principles require sacrifice. It’s easier just to allow government to perpetuate itself rather than ask the electorate to make sacrifices in order to shrink the institution from which those officials think they derive their power.

Mr. Thompson alludes to the sacrifice issue as well in his conclusion:

" ...Conservatives must have faith that, more often than not, Americans will make the sacrifices necessary to preserve national security and prosperity.
A political party that adheres to conservative principles should have continuing success – especially if its leadership believes in those principles and is able to articulate them."

At this point, it appears that we are still waiting for the leadership that can articulate those principles and not simply fill our ears with rhetoric against the other party. Only by speaking rationally about these beliefs and then acting on them can a party with a conservative philosophy be entrusted again with control at all levels government.

The lesson from Mr. Thompson; maybe it takes getting out of the political scene to clearly articulate a statesman-like message on conservatism. I just hope people are still listening.

Statesmanship vs. politics

In searching for the writing of others on “stewardship in government,” I found an interesting statement on a website for Todd Long, a Republican candidate for Congress in the Florida 8th Congressional District: “A politician thinks about the next election. A statesman thinks about the next generation.” I don’t know Mr. Long, but I wish I’d come up with that one myself.

The short-sighted activities of current politicians have created a house of cards for our posterity. In particular, the unsustainable levels of spending and national consumption are largely due to an attitude amongst our leaders that to ask the people to sacrifice for tomorrow is unpopular and will only result in being sent home. Such thinking isn’t leadership at all.

While we ask our armed forces and their families to make sacrifices (for some the ultimate sacrifice) in a time of war, we the citizens at home have not been asked to sacrifice anything for the war effort or otherwise. It doesn’t appear that our government has the fortitude to ask the people to sacrifice for the war and much less so for the future generations by reforming entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare or proposing solutions on health care or energy policy which may be controversial even within their own parties.

These issues require leadership. Leadership requires statesmanship. I echo the question I hear so many ask, “Where have all the statesmen gone?” Currently, it seems that those who hold high office seek only to denigrate the members of the opposing party in an effort to “rouse the base,” rather than work collaboratively on solutions to issues that determine the fate of our nation for the next generation. We need statesmen who build credibility by clearly communicating the issues and calling on constituents to make necessary sacrifices rather than holding on to power at all costs by pretending that pressing issues will fix themselves simply by maintaining the status quo.

In 2007, I attended the South Carolina GOP’s annual Silver Elephant Dinner at which Sean Hannity of Fox News was the keynote speaker. A significant amount of the time was spent on what I’ll call “Clinton humor.” It occurred to me as Mr. Hannity spoke that as Republicans we had lost the initiative as the party of ideas and had instead become the anti-Democrat party. I’m certainly not suggesting that Democrats are any more pure in their rhetorical attacks against Republicans. Both parties have lost any sense of magnanimity. Solutions don’t come out of rhetorical statements against the other party. Even though there are those who enjoy the “red meat” of politics, we cannot afford the cynicism that these acerbic partisan rants breed in the electorate if we are to inspire the nation to make sacrifices as stewards of the blessings of Liberty for posterity.

Theodore Roosevelt once said, "It is character that counts in a nation as in a man." My hope is that we can find statesmen and leaders who have the character to ask the nation to stand on its.

Defining "Stewardship"

In February of 2003, I was in Boston on business and was invited to have dinner at a very nice restaurant with the incoming president of a 6th generation family-owned company and his executives. The entire city was in the midst of a record snowfall and the dinner was a leisurely one because, I think, all the parties were avoiding having to venture into the bitter cold.

As we talked and ate, I asked the gentleman who was just about 40 at the time, how his family had been able to achieve the milestone of successfully turning over the reigns of the family business to him after already having survived five prior generations. I told him that I worked with companies everyday that had difficulty transitioning to the second or the third generation, and yet his family had clearly done what seemed impossible for most. He didn’t hesitate in his reply and offered a one-word answer: “Stewardship”.

I paused and then said, “In the South where I come from, that word has a connotation of donating money to the Church. What does it mean up here?”

He laughed and commented, “We’ve always defined ‘stewardship’ as ‘leaving things better than you found them.’”

Delightful as the evening was and as insightful the conversation, that definition has haunted me ever since. Over the last few years, I have become increasingly concerned that we, as a nation and a culture, have lost any sense of stewardship. The idea that we would leave anything better than we found it seems so distant in a culture where our political leaders seek to remain in power at all costs with no sense of fiscal discipline. Stewardship requires sacrifice today so that we preserve for tomorrow’s generations.

The idea of preserving for tomorrow was very much on the minds of the founders of our country when they agreed on the very mission statement for our government; the preamble to The Constitution and its final purpose, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

This journal seeks to explore and expound on the ideas related to stewardship and the role of government and the people in our nation.

Since that evening meal on a snowy night in Boston, and upon these recent reflections on the intent of those who risked everything to found our nation, I have thought it ironic that the gentleman who shared his views on stewardship with me shares the surname of one of our original patriots. His name is Kevin Hancock, president of Hancock Lumber.