In the Arena

by Pete Hegseth

  America’s first republican, George Washington, along with his founding compatriots, fully understood this reality. From the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street at his first inaugural address, Washington said, “the destiny of the republican model of government [is] justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” America was, from the first shot heard ’round the world to John Hancock’s bold signature on the Declaration of Independence, an experiment: an experiment in self-government and an experiment in human freedom. In Europe and around the world, government “of the people” was seen as dangerous and peaceful transfers of power deemed a naïve prospect. Surely a constitution—just a scrap of paper—could not command such authority and allegiance? Such an experiment was doomed to fail! So said the cynics and the critics. Yet thanks to the courage of generations, thanks to men and women in the arena, an exception was achieved and an experiment validated. America has seen exceptional results since—pride, power, and wealth experienced by many—but only the perpetuation of the equal and exceptional ingredients instilled at the founding keeps America truly special. All republicans—Republicans or Democrats—can agree on that; the only question is who in America will truly fight for it today, and how.

  • • •

  Lincoln’s statement is an expression of America’s tradition of equality, but Roosevelt refines it further. When discussing equality, neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt is talking about absolute equality or equality of outcome—as stated earlier, both knew such a goal is impossible and counterproductive. Instead, “we are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who would make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality which means injustice,” said Roosevelt. “The inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege.” Full equality is never possible, and is not just. People will never be, in practice, equal—nor is it possible for people or governments to forge equal outcomes. Attempting that quickly turns equality into an injustice, redistribution, socialism, or worse. But on the point of equal opportunity, Roosevelt is unequivocal:

  We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service. There should, so far as possible, be equal of opportunity to render service; but just so long as there is inequality of service there should and must be inequality of reward.

  Equal opportunity is also known as the American Dream, the ability for anyone—man, woman, black, white, young, old, rich, or poor—to “show the stuff that is in him.” This dream has fueled the American psyche for more than 240 years and has produced a country of strivers, innovators, pioneers, workers, and high achievers. The preservation of that dream in each generation has produced citizens who are afforded equal opportunity to leverage their talents and skills to pursue happiness and leave a better life for the next generation. Nothing more, but nothing less. Just as the greatness of a country is determined by the goodness of its average citizens, equal opportunity for those good citizens to succeed is fundamental to a great republic’s success. Good citizens use their equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream, all of which keeps the American experiment exceptional. Put even more simply, Good citizens plus equal opportunity equals an American Dream for individuals and an exceptional America for all.

  The inverse is also true. Without “good citizens,” the equation fails—hence Roosevelt’s emphasis on citizenship in the speech. The ability to work, willingness to fight, necessity of strong families, and baseline of character remain fundamental. However, even with good citizens, the American Dream and American exceptionalism are lost without both the perception and the reality that an equal opportunity to “pursue happiness” is available to all Americans, regardless of station in life. This is where good citizens are required to go beyond “efficiency” as individuals and “also must have those qualities which direct the efficiency into channels for the public good.” The phrase “public good” can mean many things, to many people; Roosevelt mentions different attributes in the speech but always comes back to the core theme of being “equal of opportunity.”

  At a basic level, today’s formulation of equal opportunity is commonly understood to mean that all Americans are treated similarly—that is, equal justice—and are unimpeded by societal barriers, inherent prejudices, or societal preferences that inhibit social mobility. The good news is that, from slaves to women to Native Americans to blacks to the gay community, the concept of equal justice has proliferated powerfully, if imperfectly, in America. Likewise prejudices and societal preferences against individuals live largely at the ideological margins of society, having been addressed by a commitment to assimilation and America’s embrace of pluralism and real tolerance. America is not perfect, but the arc of equality—to channel Martin Luther King Jr.—has bent continually in the right direction. Today the real impediment to equal opportunity exists from societal, political, or economic limitations to social mobility. Differences of mental ability, physical capability, and family ties will always exist and will always keep the playing field uneven to some degree, but systemic barriers to advancement, seen or unseen, are intolerable and ought be the focus of “good citizens”—as they were for Roosevelt. The ability for anyone to rise, anyone to succeed, or anyone to pursue happiness—my children or yours—remains the preeminent “public good.” Unfortunately, social mobility is heading in the wrong direction in America today.

  For much of America’s history, the “man who does his work well,” in Roosevelt’s words, was able to get ahead. Work hard enough, get an education, save money, be responsible—and doors will open. A 2014 Pew Research Center poll showed that 60 percent of Americans still believe most people who want to get ahead can do so if they work hard enough. Unfortunately, this perception—which reflects healthy optimism about the American Dream—is increasingly disconnected from the lives of many Americans, especially those lacking financial and familial means. Many studies have been done, and lots of statistics compiled, that demonstrate a plain, simple, and difficult reality today: even if you play by the rules, it is getting harder to get ahead in America. Pew called 2000–10 “the lost decade” with a middle class that “has shrunk in size, fallen backwards in income and wealth, and shed some . . . of its characteristic faith in the future.” Eighty-five percent of Americans in the survey say it’s more difficult than ever to maintain their standard of living. These numbers, and this sentiment, have only worsened since 2010. Income, wealth, and net worth all continue to trend downward for the poor and middle class; debt, on the other hand, continues to rise. Overall, too often the poor are staying poor and the middle class are either stuck where they are, or sliding slowly backward. Working hard and playing by the rules doesn’t pay off the way it used to.

  The causes for this are many. Many of our country’s poor are trapped in a self-fulfilling dependency cycle that meets their basic needs but provides few avenues up and out. A soft bigotry of low or, worse, no expectations keeps the poor, poor. The jobs that are accessible for the poor and middle class don’t pay off the way they used to—with increases in living costs outpacing basic wages, technological advances replacing low-skilled jobs with high-skilled jobs, and global competition and regulations sending companies, and their opportunities, overseas. Moreover, today’s good-paying jobs require education and skills that many of America’s students don’t have. Instead they get a high school diploma from a public school that fails to prepare them adequately for the modern job market, or come out of college saddled with mountains of debt and four years of intellectual coddling that didn’t prepare them for the real world. America’s twentieth-century education model, already saddled with a postmodern curriculum, is not serving twenty-first-century students well at all. Most important, the advantages traditionally instilled by a family in the home—the ingredients for good citizenship—are undercut b
y permanently broken families. The family unit—conventional or mixed—is the first and indispensable step toward equal opportunity, and it remains in crisis. Not having a healthy family life makes getting an education more difficult, and not having a good education makes getting a good job more difficult; lack of good opportunity in all three areas—family, education, and employment—is an unholy mix that has led to a “social mobility gap” America must address.

  The Left claims to carry this mantle, making “income inequality” their signature issue—and they’re not entirely wrong to do so. While in absolute terms, more than 80 percent of Americans have higher incomes than their parents did, in relative terms the wealth gap has grown considerably. Most of America’s wealth has collected at the top, with America’s highest earners today accumulating significantly more wealth than ever, while income accumulation at the bottom of the economic ladder is stagnant, and falling. In absolute terms the tide might be rising overall, but that overall rise does not solve for the fact that the discrepancy in boat size is rising much faster—the rich are building bigger yachts and the poor are sticking with their fishing boats or, sadly, life rafts. Launching off from this reality is where the Left continually misses the mark. Rather than address the root cause of social immobility (the ability for small boats to become big boats) they publicly denounce the symptom of “income inequality” (how dare you have such a big boat!).

  Teddy Roosevelt warns of this impulse in his speech, saying, “The gravest wrong upon his country is inflicted by [the] man . . . who seeks to make his countrymen divide primarily in the line that separates class from class, occupation from occupation, men of more wealth from men of less wealth.” The Left’s argument devolves into divisive class warfare, pitting economically insecure voters against rich bogeymen. Likewise, their policy prescriptions, no matter how well intentioned, are tried, tired, and have proven counterproductive. For more than a half century, the Left’s universal and undeterred so-called solution to poverty has been more government intervention, more government programs, and more wealth redistribution. Always more spending; always just a few more billion dollars away from a “New Deal” or “Great Society.” Take from the rich and give to the poor—“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”—say Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, echoing Karl Marx. It may work at the ballot box, but more than fifty years after LBJ’s “War on Poverty” was declared, it’s quite clear that government control of economic distribution doesn’t work in implementation.

  The Left still operates as though the government stands at the center of all things, owning and controlling all the resources and choosing which to dole out to whom, either by picking winners and losers through the tax code or redistribution of taxpayer dollars. However, government-centric redistribution is not the approach America was founded on, and not what built the most prosperous nation—from top to bottom—that the world has ever seen. America was founded on economic freedom, not economic predestination; our founders believed in equal opportunity and individual choices, not equal outcome via government mandates. A proper understanding of these principles has lifted more men, women, and children out of poverty than any system in human history. America’s free-market, capitalist system is the reason that, for all our problems, America is the first country in the world where our poorest people struggle with obesity and have more technology in their pockets today than NASA had when it sent a man to the moon. We may struggle with social mobility today, but it’s still great to be an American.

  • • •

  The ongoing fight to preserve the American Dream is why I introduced the word big-R Republican earlier in this chapter—not to make a partisan statement or laud Republicans for past achievements, but instead to remind them—and in fact chide them (and me)—to continue the republican and Republican tradition for the equal opportunity that enables the social mobility that enables the American Dream. Republicans, especially conservatives, are ceaselessly accused of not caring about the little guy and instead advancing policies that ensure the rich only get richer, at the expense of the little guy. That is not why I’m a conservative, and I’ve never met a conservative who seeks that. But complaining about this characterization won’t fix it, either. It is not enough for those of us who vehemently oppose the scourge of social immobility to simply rail against the left-wing, centrally planned, big-government policy failures that suppress upward mobility for the least among us. Income inequality is perfectly acceptable—in fact healthy—as long as social mobility, both up and down the ladder, is possible. Poorer Americans shouldn’t look at the rich and say, “Shame on you.” Instead we should look at wealthy Americans and say, “Someday I could be rich like you. And if I’m never rich, my son or daughter could be!” As long as this American Dream is strong and social mobility possible, Americans understand inevitable income inequality.

  The problem comes when the evidence suggests not only that America is less equal, but that Americans are also less economically and socially mobile—that the deck is stacked against the little guy in favor of the rich, elite, and well connected. We are at one of those moments and therefore have a decision to make. We can allow the Left to continue their rhetorical attack on income inequality and advance larger and more intrusive government as a response, or instead start building the case for both the freedom and opportunity that enable, and can renew, social mobility—and the American Dream. At those moments, Roosevelt says, “[r]uin looks us in the face if we judge a man by his position instead of judging him by his conduct in that position.” Republicans, conservatives, and all republicans need to muster the courage, led by good citizens who understand the need to fight for the public good, to both identify and confront the societal barriers to social mobility and propose proactive solutions that restore equal opportunity in America (some of which are highlighted in the policy chapter). It’s our job to keep the focus on “conduct,” not “the position.” The Left is not going to do it; only the right side of the political spectrum has the ability to restore America’s founding premise.

  America can be a very polarized place, with each side fervently invested in its view of the world and special interests on all sides ensuring that nothing changes. The same could be said of Roosevelt’s time and he provides yet another powerful reminder to citizens engaged in domestic ideological battle, especially one full of powerful, competing, and entrenched interests. He proposed a two-part retort to ideological gridlock. First, “perhaps the most important thing the ordinary citizen, and, above all, the leader of ordinary citizens, has to remember in political life is that he must not be a sheer doctrinaire,” said Roosevelt. “The closet philosopher . . . who from his library tells how men ought to be governed under ideal conditions is of no use in actual governmental work.”

  Conservatives—myself included—understand this error is inherent to progressivism, but conservatives fall prey to the same folly. Modern conservatives must look at problems as they are, not as they used to be or as we think they are. The challenges of 2014 are not the challenges of 1980, and conservative solutions must adjust accordingly. Of course the core principles of conservatism remain the same, but their efficacy may require different applications. Simply proposing more marginal tax cuts and eliminating federal agencies—while principled—may not be the policy prescriptions that improve opportunity in America. This is not an issue of messaging (making sure people know conservatives care) but is instead the sincere pursuit of opportunity-based solutions that will improve the lives of citizens. The endowed and equal pursuit of the Declaration never changes, but how we get to that end can and does change.

  Roosevelt continues with his second retort, equally valid for both the Left and Right. “The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize.” Whether we choose to internalize it or not, t
his country is split roughly evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Both sides often prefer to pretend they can wave a magic wand and make their view of America happen. Not only does that not work, but as Roosevelt points out in his speech, such a position often means “the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better [is] forever the enemy of the possible good.” Arguments become stale, entrenched, and impassable—not just between the Left and the Right, but also within the Right. Moreover—as I’ve learned at almost every turn of my conservative life—the hypothetical island of conservative ideological purity is never pure enough for a self-appointed few. One slip of the tongue, one word of cooperation, one picture with the wrong person, or one suggestion of a deal can bring the full wrath of the self-appointed purity police (enter, Facebook and Twitter!). The same happens on the left but is at least equally prominent on the right.

  Being in the arena does not mean fighting zealously only for lost causes; in fact, perpetually and intentionally pursuing extreme or controversial positions can, for some, be a convenient way to never actually enter the arena. Relishing positions that offend or inflame is another way to avoid actual debate or political relevance, further making impossible positions the enemy of the good. Roosevelt had this position pegged as well, calling out the “one-sided fanatic, and still more the mob-leader, and the insincere man who to achieve power promises what by no possibility can be performed, are not merely useless but noxious.” Today, noxious often lives behind 140 characters or in the comments section of an online news story or blog post, basking in a self-fulfilling glow of vitriol.