Heroic Conservatism

Former Bush Speechwriter Michael Gerson’s book Heroic Conservatism is an interesting and worthwhile read for any Republican.  I certainly think that it provides some foundational material for the Republican Party of the future, but I think it also fails in ways that bring to mind the failings of the Bush Administration.

Gerson is an evangelical who became part of the early Bush team in 1999 as a speech writer and advisor.  In that position, he can certainly lay claim to being one of the architects of “compassionate conservatism”. I found a lot to like in some of the principles laid out by Gerson, but there is plenty of room for criticism as well.  Much like our current president, Gerson seems to disdain any criticism, constructive or otherwise, of “compassionate conservatism” and instead jumps into the bunker of righteousness.

I recall being intrigued by the “compassionate conservatism” theme of Bush in 2000.  As a conservative Republican I’ve never seen anything that prevented the coexistence of these two principles and a lot that joined them.  The fact that we had a President who would take this message straight to the American people was exciting. 

Gerson lays out the underpinnings of Bush’s philosophy, and as many have assumed, Catholic Social teaching is at the heart of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”, specifically the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity (pp. 160-164).  While Gerson largely gets it right, I think he makes a leap when he suggests that Catholic social teaching calls for solidarity when subsidiarity fails.  It’s not that simple, and in fact, that movement toward solidarity when subsidiarity should have taken precedence was criticized by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Centesimus Annus.

Gerson also calls for conservatives to stop seeing government as the enemy (in so many words).  This is perhaps where Gerson’s advice is best.  Certainly the government can solve some problems, and should solve some problems.  Conservatives should examine every problem before the country and weigh the best ways to address them.  If upon examination, a proper role for government can be found, they should put forward those proposals.  But that role for government doesn’t necessarily need to include massive infusions of money.  Gerson gives the Bush administrations Faith Based Initiatives policy as a good example of this, calling it “applied subsidiarity” (p. 169).

Overall, Gerson sets a good tone for a future Republican Party; open to government action and concerned about the the poor and how to lift them from poverty.  But I wasn’t surprised to find conservatives who weren’t enchanted with his book.  (e.g. Cornerites Levin, Ponnuru, and Stuttaford) His attitude toward those who disagree with his philosophy is hardly open minded. 

For example, Gerson has plenty of criticism for Congressional leaders such as Dick Armey, but I saw little evidence in this book of how the Bush Administration worked to be good stewards of taxpayer money.  It is easy to criticize those who don’t want to spend money on programs you consider worthwhile.  But failing to address the very real concerns about government programs that don’t produce what they are intended to produce is hardly a way to forge unity. 

Heroic Conservatism also supported my belief that sometimes Bush’s compassion was measured (like almost all compassion these days) by how much money he was willing to spend on an issue.   It differed from the Democrats only in his refusal to confiscate money from the citizenry to pay for his compassion, instead electing to run up government debt.

Gerson, like Bush, seems to brush aside the costs of his various public programs, and holds in disdain those who would thwart their agenda based on cost.  Any Republican who asks the price is “small minded, cold, and uninspired” (p. 16).  In fact, in no place in the book does Gerson ever really engage in this balancing act.  Gerson sees a problem and wants it addressed, regardless of the cost.  Of course, there are a host of problems in America that the Bush White House did not seek to address.  If one were to apply Gerson’s tough standards on Bush himself, the President would come up far short of the high minded idealism that Gerson espouses.

I wonder sometimes if Heroic Conservatism is more speech and less analysis.  For example, when he calls for “an uncompromising concern for the poor and weak” (p. 23) I can’t help but wonder if he has really read of those very few uncompromising souls like Mother Teresa and St. Francis.  He takes the opposition of some conservatives to civil rights laws, labor laws, etc. and then suggests that they “become a source of injustice”.  (p. 22).  Does Gerson really believe that voting against the civil rights act means that the lawmaker becomes a source of the discrimination? The source remains the person who does the unjust act, regardless of how those acts might be facilitated by others.

I definitely recommend this book for any Republican concerned about the future of the party.  With the nomination of the rather unorthodox McCain, there is a lot of soul searching to be done in the next few years, and Heroic Conservatism provides some great insight into what the party should be considering.