American Republicans & Conservatives Honor Roll

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797): the father of conservatism in the post-French Revolution world

I've publicly admitted on various occasions that I was a teenage Republican, although I must sheepishly admit that this condition persisted well past my teen years. (However, I've never voted for the Republican nominee for president; i.e., no Nixon or later nominees). But this bout of Republicanism was something that I was born into; my parents were committed, active members of the Republican Party. By the time I was 16 years old, I'd attended two Republican national conventions (San Francisco and Miami) and had met numerous Republican officials and candidates and attended hours of meetings. I also hasten to add for the benefit of any younger readers, that the present-day manifestation of the Republican Party is a far cry from the party of my parents and my youth. The last Republican nominee for public office that I can remember voting for was Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), which continued even after I affiliated myself with the Democratic Party back in the early 1980s.  Leach was a "moderate" Republican and received a lot of crossover votes until 2006 when the Democrats finally nominated a well-qualified candidate against him (Dave Loebsack), and it was clear that Leach wasn't appreciated by his own party in Congress. I thought of my vote for Loebsak as an act of mercy toward Leech as well as a vote in favor of Loebsack. (N.B. Leach later endorsed Obama for president against McCain, and he penned an editorial in 2021 in favor of the impeachment of Trump based on Trump's role in the attack on the Capital.)  And as mentioned, I've been registered as a Democrat since the early 1980s. That way I can honestly and accurately say that "I'm not a member of any organized political party--I'm a Democrat" (hat-tip to Will Rogers for coining that ditty). 

But while I was raised in the Republican Party, I was born with a cautious, conservative temperament. With age, however, I received a liberal (arts) education; I've lived through a wide-ranging set of experiences that have fostered a pragmatic frame of mind toward action; and I've cultivated a penchant for radical (as in "going to the root of things") perspective. But for all these additions, I am--at least in some ways--still a conservative at heart. 

So what does it mean to be a "conservative" at heart? From my perspective, it implies several things. It means preserving (conserving) what one has that is worth preserving. At the present moment, that would certainly entail democracy and the rule of law. This is not to suggest that either our democracy or our legal system are without flaws. Hardly. Indeed, as to democracy, I'm with Churchill: it's the worst form of political rule except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. And our legal system is too much governed by the Wizard of Id's golden rule: "them's that's got the gold make the rules," among other foibles. But, to continue my string of cliches and well-traveled quotes, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, having once been the owner of an old house, I'm all in favor of making repairs to maintain the (mostly) solid structure that we've come to know and value. So with our form of government; better imperfect democracy than authoritarianism and despotism. So, too, with the rule of law; our laws and judicial system are imperfect but far better than most and if laws and judicial system are trashed, we will suffer very ugly consequences. And, I might add, in what is admittedly a bit of a balancing act, I exercise my cautious, conservative impulses in concert with my liberal, pragmatic, and radical dispositions. Thus, of late I've taken to describing myself as a "Burkean radical" or, conversely, a "radical Burkean." An oxymoron? Perhaps, but I like to think of such a designation as a fruitful paradox; a form of "both/and" and not "either/or." Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes (hat-tip to the poet of American democracy, Walt Whitman). 

Thus, my conservative self wants slow, careful change. No storming the barricades. Instead, going to the meetings: talk, persuade, bargain, wheedle, and cajole to realize pragmatic results that benefit the society as a whole and that recognize the interests of all of those legitimately at the table. And yet--we need radical change. Or, rather, radical change is coming, it's only a matter of direction. Climate change and other instances of our "polycrisis" (hat-tip to Adam Tooze for this term) will require many and basic radical changes that will go to the root of our culture. The question won't be whether radical changes occur, but whether we will deliberately choose the changes we should desire (my conservative option) or whether radical changes will be foisted upon us by our failure to act soon enough to avoid the most radical and most disturbing changes. Nature, in some ways, is my model: it conserves life and it also allows--indeed, sometimes requires--radical changes in life. I want to conserve the Nature and the (best of ) the culture and society that we still have and not suffer a wholesale transformation into something utterly alien. 

So how does one make my honor roll of conservatives and Republicans? Simple: one speaks out for democracy and the rule of law; one speaks out in favor of dialectical and not eristic decision-making; in favor of speech and not force. One speaks out against Trump and Trumpism (the most un-conservative force ever to have held the presidency and Congress). One does not endorse Orban (Hungary) (as Trump just did), Boloansaro (Brazil), Duterte (Philippines), Erdogan (Turkey), or Putin (Russia), and other such faux-democrats, demagogues, and despots. “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!” said the father of post-WWII American conservatism, William F. Buckley. But in our time the tides of history have largely shifted away from liberalism toward illiberalism; away from deliberation and toward force; and away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. The inherent flaw in conservatism is that it tends to leave the powerful in power; it defaults too easily to the status quo. But the strength of conservatism is that it puts principles before power; it seeks to protect the bedrock upon which societies can flourish. 

As we approach the first anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, and now one year past the Trump presidency, these individuals, all of whom (I believe) either self-identify as "conservative" or "Republican" (or both), have passed the test. Note that precious, precious few are elected officials (sad indeed). Note that I undoubtedly have some serious policy disagreements with them, but all have spoken out against the corruptions (pecuniary, personal, and institutional) of Trump and his ilk, which includes most current Republican elected officials. That these individuals chose democracy and the rule of law over personal gain and personal friendships speaks loudly indeed. I commend them to you. 

1. David Brooks, NYT & The Atlantic.
2. David Frum, The Atlantic & former W. Bush speechwriter. 
3. Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic & former WaPo columnist & historian of  the USSR & Eastern Europe
4. Max Boot, WaPo columnist, and historian
5. Bill Kristol, formerly of The Weekly Standard, The Bulwark founder & editor, and former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Quayle
6. Tom Nichols, a contributor to The Atlantic & former Naval War College prof
7. Andrew Sullivan, podcaster, blogger, & author
8. Charlie Sykes, podcaster and The Bulwark co-founder & contributor
9. George Conway, lawyer, and Republican official, & a Lincoln Project co-founder
10. Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign strategist & Republican political operative
11. Robert Kagan, foreign policy expert
12. Rick Wilson, former Republican political strategist & Lincoln Project co-founder
13. John Weaver, political strategist for McCain campaigns & Lincoln Project co-founder
14. Mona Charen, writer, podcaster, former Reagan administration official, and The Bulwark policy editor
15. Ross Douthat, NYT columnist 
16. David French, commentator, formerly with National Review, & now with The Dispatch
17. Jennifer Rubin, WaPo columnist
18. George Will, WaPo columnist
19. Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican gov NJ & former EPA director in W. Bush administration
20. Evan McMullin, former CIA operative, former House Republican caucus policy director, & now an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Utah
21. Brett Stephens, NYT columnist
22. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY and vice-chair the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack
23. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-IL was one of ten Republicans to vote in favor of Trump's second impeachment

Also, those associated with The Bulwark and The Lincoln Project whom I haven't mentioned above. 

I invite any nominations to the list or any criticisms of any selection. 

As we go into 2022 and toward 2024, crucial years for the future of democracy and the rule of law in the U.S., we need these folks and a whole lot more like them. 2020 was a success overall, but a large, strong, and perhaps growing cancer continues to infect the American polity, and we need courageous and patriotic Americans to do their part to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution and the democratic and legal principles that have grown from it. We should not want the failure of the American experiment to fall upon our heads. 

N.B. The list is based on my random recall of whom I recognized and not necessarily in order of any particular merit.

Representative Loebsak Replies About Syria

September 11, 2013

Mr. Steve Greenleaf
345 Magowan Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52246-3515

Dear Mr. Greenleaf,

Thank you for contacting me about Syria.  I'm honored to represent you.  Your opinion is very important to me and my priority is to provide Iowa's Second District with the best representation possible.

As soon as discussions about possible use of military force in Syria began, I urged President Obama to make the case directly to the American people for involvement in the conflict and to seek authorization from Congress prior to committing U.S. military assets in Syria.   Any decision to use military force requires the public debate our Founding Fathers wisely prescribed in the Constitution. 

The use of chemical weapons against civilians and the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria is morally reprehensible and should be unequivocally condemned by the international community.  However, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I strongly believe that after more than a decade of war during which time our troops and military families have made great sacrifices on our behalf, we must exercise extreme caution in undertaking any military action.

The President must directly make the case to the American people for why military action in Syria is in our national interest.  This includes laying out the strategic reasoning behind military action, defining the national security reasoning for such action, and establishing an end goal and exit strategy for potential use of force, as well as laying out the broader implications of military action for the region and American interests there.  In a highly unstable area of the world, the implications of U.S. military involvement in the Syrian conflict requires significant debate and the support of the American people.  This is particularly true with our troops still deployed in Afghanistan and after our servicemembers and military families have made incredible sacrifices on our behalf over more than a decade of war.

I have received initial briefings by the White House and will continue to closely engage the Administration and our military, intelligence, and diplomatic leaders on this issue.  However, it is absolutely critical to me to know your thoughts on this issue, and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to share them with me. I also have a poll on this issue posted on my website, which I welcome you to take at http://loebsack.house.gov/syria if you have not already.

Please be assured that as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, I will continue to closely monitor the ongoing situation in Syria and promote extreme caution in the use of military force. 

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue.  My office is here to assist you with any and all concerns you have, so please do not hesitate to contact me whenever you feel that I can be of assistance.  I encourage you to visit my website at www.loebsack.house.gov and sign up for my e-newsletters to stay informed of the work I'm doing for you.  I am proud to serve the Second District, and I am committed to working hard for Iowans.

Dave Loebsak
Iowa's Second District

About Syria & U.S. Intervention

If I’d been in the U.S. on Monday, I would not have attended a rally against U.S. airstrikes on Assad’s regime in Syria. Not because I favor such strikes, but because I don’t want to delude myself or others about what we’re doing or not doing if the U.S. were to act. For instance, the mailer from CREDO stated:

The use of chemical weapons is morally reprehensible, and it should be punished. The International Criminal Court should immediately start war crime tribunals and proceedings against those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. And the U.S. can take evidence that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons to the UN Security Council and seek a resolution against Syria. Both acts would make it far more difficult for Russia to continue defending the regime and open the door for international action to broker a ceasefire -- the only way we will stop the massacre of civilians.

Gee, why hadn’t anyone thought of these actions before? To call this attitude “spittin’ into the wind” would be an apt cliché, except that we’re talking about life and death here. We’re not talking about a simple choice of war or peace. There is no peace in Syria, nor will there be for some time, regardless of U.S. actions. Whatever we do, let’s not delude ourselves. By not acting, we may embolden the regime to use chemical weapons in the future, assuming the regime—with Assad’s knowledge and consent—did make the decision to deploy the poison gas (a likely but by no means certain proposition). By not acting, we and the rest of the world may have allowed the use of chemical weapons without consequence, to the detriment of a bright line that has for the most part been recognized (although we looked the other way with Iraq when Saddam was our enemy’s enemy in the war with Iran). Finally, the President drew a bright line and if we don’t back up his word, we may reduce the credibility of the U.S. and the Obama administration. While I’m generally an Obama administration supporter, the issue isn’t whether it would hurt him and his administration (the David Gergen argument), but it’s a larger issue, larger than all of the factors that I’ve listed so far: what’s in the vital interest of the U.S. in the long haul?

Based on my perception that we do not have a compelling national interest in acting by direct military attack on Syria, we should not. It will come at a cost, as I hope that I’ve made clear above, but politics always revolves around choices, often tragic choices, life and death choices. The leader of our nation has to decide whether a compelling national interest merits the lives of those in our armed forces, the cost to our treasury, and the effects on our long-term standing in the world. I believe our (sort of) hands-off approach to Syria has been the correct stance, the despicable character of the Assad regime notwithstanding. In fact, it may be a case of the devil we know is better than the one that we don’t. If you think that you can forecast accurately the future of any potential change in regime, then I expect that you forecast the sequence and turn of events in Egypt successfully as well. Please call the President immediately with your credentials! Like Egypt, Syria has no oil and no reason (or ability) at this point to cause its neighbors further harm. The Israelis and Saudis may be nervous, but that should be their problem first and foremost, and a secondary concern (at most) to the U.S. We have to act in our national interest, not in accord with any other nation’s interest except to the extent that it accords with our own.

We have a polity will have and express different ideas about what constitutes a compelling national interest, but to me, we have to have some tangible reason for action, not merely our revulsion of murder and genocide (important as those are) nor some sense of national prestige or credibility.

At this point, I don’t see how our national interest compels us to act. The reasons for action—which I take seriously—do not outweigh the reasons to avoid taking the course of active military intervention. Let’s hope that the Russian proposal, if real, works and saves us from having to make a tough decision.

I’ll be sending this to Congressmen Loebsak and Braley along with Senators Grassley and Harkin. A “no” vote to strikes isn’t a vote against “war” or to “give peace a chance”, but a calculated decision to protect the vital national interests of the U.S. and to commit to making the world a better place in the long run, even when it hurts.  

P.S. Nicholas Kristoff wrote compelling in favor of intervening. Stephen Walt argues articulately (and convincingly, to me) against intervention, and Graham Allison provides some thoughts about alternative courses of action that seek to punish and deter without the use of airstrikes. See my Twitter feed for citations if you care to check these out.