by Henry Olsen
This happens to the best of people. I should know, because I almost was one of them.
I ran for the California State Assembly when I was a mere twenty-four years old. During my unsuccessful campaign, I had a meeting that dramatized this problem, which has stuck with me for over thirty years.
One day I met with a man named Alan Alameda.85 I was young and full of what I thought was a Reagan-inspired, antigovernment philosophy. As I explained to Mr. Alameda that I wanted to cut government and taxes, he asked me a simple question: “What do you want to cut?” I had never thought about that before. “Government” was an abstraction to me then, a thing that took freedom and money. But his question made me realize that I had to know what government did and then explain why such and such a program was not worth keeping if I was to actually cut government. What was in and what was out, and why? I had never considered that—and the only way to address that question without becoming like Ron Paul was to know what government should be doing, and why. I had to know what I was for to know what I should be against.
Reagan didn’t know how to answer questions like Mr. Alameda’s when he first declared for governor in 1966. But as he learned what the state government, and then the federal government, did, he was able to apply his philosophy to the specifics. That philosophy—support for programs that actually helped people who truly needed help to live decent, dignified lives; opposition to programs that either did not fit that requirement or that forced people to live in a way they did not want as a condition of getting the help—informed all the decisions he made during his governorship and his presidency.
If conservative Republicans adopted his philosophy as their own, they too could use it to inform the decisions they must make today and into the future. The Reagan philosophy would help us address the challenges of 2017, those of 2027, and those for years beyond. In doing so, we would also create the durable majority, the New Republican Party, which would shape the debate and move America in the direction of freedom and dignity.
This idea might seem a bit abstract, and one thing we know from Reagan is that conservatives should never be slaves to abstraction. I will never claim to know how Reagan would have solved the challenges we face today. His thinking was too subtle, his wisdom too profound, to know exactly how he would have applied his philosophy to a specific tax bill or what he would have specifically done on immigration or trade. But I do think we know enough about his ideas to hazard a guess as to how he might have approached some of the key challenges of our time.
Reagan would definitely have wanted to repeal Obamacare. Its rules and regulations put the government in the driver’s seat in determining what care should be delivered, to whom, and at what price. This is exactly the sort of government-directed society that Reagan believed was opposed to American principles.
It’s less clear what he would have wanted to replace it with. I think, however, it is pretty clear he would have wanted to ensure that people would not lose coverage that they had received as a result of Obamacare’s exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. His consistent belief that it was OK for government to pay for needed medical care for those who could not afford it makes that plain. The details as to who should be covered, how much the government should pay, and what level of care they would be guaranteed would be up for discussion, but I can’t imagine that Reagan would be more concerned about money than about life.
Reagan would probably think that individual tax rates were too high, but he would also be concerned about the effect a tax bill would have on those hurting the most. His bills often removed people from the tax rolls or targeted relief to people in the working and middle classes far beyond the simple reduction in rates. In one letter he suggested reducing a working person’s Social Security taxes rather than giving him or her a government check; perhaps he would be open to exempting a certain amount of wages from all or part of the payroll tax. Or perhaps he would want to increase the amount of the personal exemption or the standard deduction to pull more people out of paying taxes at all. I doubt he would want to decrease the amount of the child tax credit, as some supply-siders suggest. The man who praised making it economical to raise families again when he signed the 1986 tax reform bill recognized that cutting the cost of human capital matters as much or more than cutting the cost of monetary capital.
Corporate taxes are a different challenge. Reagan did not talk much about the corporate tax code. We know he wanted to increase saving and investment, so ideas for immediate expensing of corporate investment might appeal to him. He might also be open to more direct measures to stimulate job creation and wage growth, such as tax credits for hiring American citizens or for increasing employees’ wages. The bottom line would likely be what combination of all of the above was possible and was likeliest to increase economic well-being for average American citizens.
Trade and immigration are easier nuts to crack. Reagan was clearly for free trade and for fair trade. He did not hesitate to retaliate against what he thought were unfair trading practices; he was not a slave to the abstraction of free trade. He was proud when his sanctions helped Harley-Davidson recover its ability to compete against Japanese motorcycle imports. While he would never want to undo the global trading system that generally benefits all, he would not be idle when currency manipulation, lack of American access to markets, and dumping, or selling products for below cost, was closing American companies and losing Americans jobs.
Reagan was always concerned about America losing control of its borders. While he welcomed immigrants, he also knew that the country could not afford to include every economic migrant who wanted to come here for a better life. He surely would find a bill attractive that made real border control a priority while allowing some immigrants to come to our shores.
The man who increased gasoline taxes in a recession over conservative opposition to fund road building would probably not be averse to some new infrastructure construction. The federal gas tax has not been increased at all since 1993; Reagan would probably have approved of increasing it at least by the amount of inflation in the intervening twenty-four years. He might find innovative proposals like privatization or tolls attractive to fund the new projects. He might also find a move from gas taxes to a fee for every mile traveled of interest. Hybrid and electric cars like Priuses and Teslas cause as much damage to roads as their gas-engine competitors, but their much higher mileage means they pay a fraction of the cost to maintain the roads they drive. The comparatively wealthy owners of these cars could easily afford to pay for the roads they use; why not make them pay their fair share?
Reducing spending remains a large issue. While the annual budget deficit expressed as a percentage of the nation’s economy is lower now than it was in any year in the Reagan presidency, it remains high.86 America also borrowed a lot during the Obama and Bush presidencies; our total debt measured as a share of the economy is much higher than it was under Reagan’s time.87 I have no doubt that Reagan would want to cut the federal budget, especially since a number of programs he always tried to cut such as farm subsidies and the Export-Import Bank remain part of the federal government.
He would do so, however, carefully and with an eye toward need. His budget-cutting exercises always tried to protect federal spending on the truly needy. In his era, that always meant exempting core entitlement spending from cuts. Whether that would still mean that today for him is unknowable. But there are ways to cut spending within entitlements without endangering core social commitments.
One is by focusing on disability spending. Many of today’s “disabled” are simply people over fifty-five with little education and some pain or depression. They collect benefits through the Social Security Disability Insurance program and the Medicare program. The federal government spends nearly $200 billion a year on disabled Americans in these programs; surely some people could be returned to work with the sort of requirements and assistance we provide welfare recipients.
Another is to increase means testing for
Medicare and Social Security. Medicare premiums are highly subsidized even if you are Mitt Romney or Warren Buffett. Is this fair? The same goes for Social Security. Right now, only 50 percent of Social Security benefits are taxed if a senior citizen has substantially above an average income for a retiree outside of Social Security. The rest is tax free. Why not tax all Social Security benefits for the super well off?
I could go on and on, but the specifics are included only to point to the principle: benefits should go to people who need them. Treating all entitlement spending the same isn’t fair. If conservative Republicans want to have the political mandate to change entitlement programs, they have to show that they value those programs for what they are: social guarantees from the better off among us to those less fortunate. That means putting average people’s lives first and other people’s money second.
I started this book with a personal story of my lifelong work in the conservative garden. I’m still at work in that garden, toiling away to help persuade Americans to choose to live a more free way of life. Many of you are also at work in that garden, whether as a policy maker, a journalist, a volunteer, or just someone who cares about his country and talks to his neighbors and friends. I’d like to end this book by talking directly to you.
Reagan and Roosevelt asked their audiences if they thought they were better off than they were in the past. I’m going to ask you a similar question: If conservative Republicans keep going on the course they have been on, do you think America will be better off in four or eight years? Do you think Americans will be freer from government restraints and commands? Do you think traditional values will be more respected by our public institutions? Do you think that America will be more respected in the world? Do you think more Americans will have joined our cause and that Republicans will consistently outnumber Democrats for the first time in eighty-four years?
I don’t. I don’t think America will be better off if we are simply louder and clearer about how much some conservatives don’t like the New Deal. I don’t think America will be better off if we put on new clothes and cosmetics, wink at social protections, and then show that what we really care about is the same old, same old. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. I agree 100 percent.
For better and for worse, we live in Franklin Roosevelt’s garden. The libertarian will be upset at this, but there is no evidence that more than a tiny portion of Americans want to tear that garden up and return to the wilderness of liberty that was pre–New Deal America. Our task as conservatives is what it has been for decades, to work to return that garden to what was promised us, a thing of beauty that enhances each of our lives, rather than let it become a collection of weeds and thorns that entwine and enslave us.
Ronald Reagan was loved by Americans because that was what he told them he wanted to do. He believed the garden he and the nation had been promised was just, but that without prudent gardeners it would inevitably become the weed- and thorn-filled hell that real socialism produces everywhere. Those gardeners were us, he said, because we are capable of genuine self-government.
We can meet our rendezvous with destiny, our time for choosing. We can choose to provide the security and the opportunity Roosevelt and Reagan told us we deserved. We can choose to treat every American with respect and dignity. We can choose to reverse America’s decline and make conservative Republicanism the country’s governing philosophy. We can choose to create the New Republican Party that gives people from every background, race, creed, and gender a real seat at our table.
Why do I think we can? Because I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will eventually triumph, and that there’s purpose and worth in each and every human life.
Acknowledgments
The Liverpool soccer club’s motto is “You’ll never walk alone,” and the Tottenham club’s slogan is “To dare is to do.” I think those two sayings nicely sum up what it is to write a book, as the writer takes the risk and creates the work while being supported by many people who help him along the way. My acknowledgments, therefore, will try to introduce you to the friends, companions, and coworkers with whom I walked while I dared and did.
This, my first sole-authored book, is the product of nearly a lifetime’s fascination with and study of politics. So I’d like to acknowledge the early influences in my life who helped nurture the seed of interest into something that found root and grew. Bob Walker, Alan Heslop, Tony Quinn, and the late Alan Hoffenblum all took their time to teach me what they knew about practical politics and political analysis. Bob was particularly important to me when I was young, serving informally as my first mentor and as a good friend. I would never have taken the course I did in life that led to this book without their aid and friendship.
My interest in political theory arose later while I was attending Claremont McKenna College. The late Harry Jaffa, Bill Allen, Marlo Lewis, and Chicago law professor Richard Epstein were each teachers who forced me to think and dig more deeply into this phenomenon we call politics. Terry Hallmark, the late Pat Powers, and Colleen Sheehan were friends who continued to walk down the path of exploration and inquiry with me. They remain among my closest friends to this day.
I took a circuitous career route to becoming a writer, first working as a political consultant and a lawyer before entering the world of conservative think tanks. So I owe a particular debt of gratitude to the people who facilitated my midthirties career change, Don Eberly and Bill Boxx, who hired me to run the Commonwealth Foundation. I also owe a strong debt to Larry Mone, president of the Manhattan Institute, and Chris DeMuth, then president of the American Enterprise Institute, for bringing me to their institutions later in my career. Each step helped me mature and grow as a person and as a thinker, giving me exposure to a wide variety of people and strains of thought that kept pushing and challenging my understanding.
Most fifty-one-year-old family men don’t leave a stable and rewarding job to pursue a dream and a new career, but that’s exactly what I did in the summer of 2013 when I left the American Enterprise Institute to become a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, my current intellectual home. I will be forever grateful to the two men, my colleague Yuval Levin and our president, Ed Whelan, who decided that I could buck the odds and brought me on board the Ethics team to make a go of it. They were joined in their leap of faith by the Bradley Foundation, especially by then President Michael Grebe, Vice President Dan Schmidt, and his assistant Mike Hartmann; the Searle Freedom Trust and its head, Kim Dennis; and the Earhart Foundation led by Ingrid Gregg and assisted by Monty Brown. Along with other supporters, such as Thomas Smith and James Piereson of the Smith Foundation, each of these institutions saw merit in my book proposal and chose to dedicate the financial resources to make it possible. I owe each of them a debt that I can never fully repay.
Getting a publisher interested in your idea is much harder than it seems, or at least harder than I knew when I started this journey. So I am extremely grateful to my former AEI colleague Norm Ornstein, who saw value in my proposal and contacted people he knew in the publishing world on my behalf. Without his efforts I would never have made any progress, and I certainly would never have found my agents, Keith Urbahn and Matt Latimer, of the Javelin Group. With their help my core insights became a real book proposal, one that could actually see the light of day. Thanks to all of them for their help in bringing this book to fruition.
My editors at HarperCollins also contributed mightily to the product you have in your hands. Adam Bellow brought my idea to HarperCollins and helped to focus my attention on bringing Reagan’s early thoughts to the forefront. His successor as my editor, Eric Meyers, helped me turn a tome into a book, and Adam’s successor as the head of Broadside Books, Eric Nelson, helped me craft a title that made the whole argument clear in one sentence. Along with their copyeditors and other assistants, they made the book what it is. Thanks for your insights and your efforts.
The
archivists at the Reagan Presidential Library accommodated my unexpected arrival with professional aplomb. Their willingness to allow my unscheduled visit to proceed gave me access to Reagan’s early years as a conservative. Without that access, this book would be incomplete, as only the longer versions of his early speeches provide the full depth and subtlety of his thought.
My parents, Henry and Dorothy, have been with me every step of the way, from the beginning to the present. From my youth when they encouraged and supported my early political interest through college (which they paid for) to the present day, letting me crash in their house for some final furious writing over Christmas vacation, their love for me has known no bounds. Thanks Mom and Dad for everything.
Two women deserve special acknowledgment. Karlyn Bowman was my colleague at AEI for over seven years and remains one of my closest friends. For years she has been studying the group of voters that quietly decide American national elections, the college dropouts and community college graduates whom pollsters label “some college.” As I stumbled into learning the importance of the semi-skilled worker to the outcome of elections, Karlyn proved an able intellectual sparring partner and coach. Moreover, she always supported me as a colleague and as a friend through thick and through thin. I have often thought that were I a classical painter I would depict her in the form of Psephologia, the mythical Greek Muse of election study, her right hand holding a stylus writing and her left holding the ancient Athenian ballot, the pebble (psephos in Greek) from which the modern study of elections takes its name. As fanciful as that supposition might be, the truth is she has served as my muse throughout the last decade and her contribution to this book is profound and incalculable.