Authentically Conservative Talk Radio  

Mark Mathis, producer of EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED and Scott Walterman, morning host of the XM Radio channel POTUS 08 will be my guests.

First, a note to the Governor: “Before you leave, GovernorHuckabee, I’d like to thank you for coming—you’ve been a breath of fresh air,different than all the other guests and a reminder of how great our democraticprocess is. If you hadn’t shown up, I’d have been inclined to believe the guestlist was by invitation only. But you’ve reminded me that often the best guestsat the party were the least anticipated.” 

I suspect, as you might have guessed, that GovernorHuckabee’s time as a Presidential candidate is running short. I could lamentthe pending loss of this true outsider, the loss of the one candidate thatseemed to have a vision for America. But this is not the day for that. Today is a day to note that despiteSenator Obama’s tide of talk on hope and optimism it is really Mike Huckabeewho is the symbol for hope in the American political process. 

At this time last year, the onslaught of party-specificPresidential Forums began and Rudy McRomney was the talk of the nation (atleast the part of the nation that cared a year ago).  Mike Huckabee was as much an after thought as Tom Tancredo,Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tommy Thompson and Jim Gilmore.  The stage was full of men seeking aplatform to share their ideas and an opportunity to gain a foothold.  Only one of these relative unknowns wasable to do so—Mike Huckabee.  Andthis fact is good for American democracy. 

The nation says it wants change.  The nation feels Washington DC is broken. The nation feelslike it needs a new direction.  Theperpetuation of the political paradigm personified by the front-runners isunlikely to alter those perceptions. If the nation feels cynical about thefuture, billionaires and establishment candidates are not sobering.  But Mike Huckabee came along anddemonstrated first-hand that an individual with some experience, with amessage, and with the ability to communicate that message can gain access tothe presidential process.  

Moreover, his candidacy reminds us that we are important.  As much as he seized the opportunityafforded him, America responded. The nation listened to the political conversations; the nation evaluatedhis message; the nation gave him a chance; and, in the end, many Americans inWyoming, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and Florida took timeout of their personal lives to communicate to the rest of the nation that theybelieve in this guy.  MikeHuckabee’s candidacy should remind us all of the hugely important role eachAmerican voter plays in this process. Individually, each of us can make a difference.  

It is somewhat interesting to me that despite theoverwhelming belief that change is in order, America continues to selectcandidates who are not much different than the elected officials who precededthem.  But I also believe that thisis a manifestation of our collective conservatism.  We understand that change is in order, but it also needs tobe thoughtful and without whimsy. Incremental change is the national tradition,and rightfully so. As much as I enjoy rearranging the furniture in my livingroom, it’s easy to put back and it affects no one outside my home. But inPresidential politics, four years is a long time to live with a lamp thatblocks the view of the television. Thus, despite their appeal, people that are agents of too much changeare not likely to fair well in the end.  

We are a nation that loves celebrity.  Whether in Hollywood or Washington DC,celebrity is the real currency of the powerful.  Look at the current field of realistic candidates and eachof the four of them has achieved some level of national celebrity and/or isidentified by something other than their ideas:  Barack Obama, the black candidate and famous for his speechat the 2004 DNC convention; Hillary Clinton, the woman candidate and formerFirst Lady; Mitt Romney, the Mormon candidate and savior of the 2002 Salt LakeOlympics; and John McCain, former POW and former Presidential candidate.  Even Rudy Giuliani’s initial successcan be traced to his post 9/11 celebrity. 

But I do not believe that celebrity is the best identifierof Presidential candidates, and so I look with great joy on the candidacy ofMike Huckabee, because he’s shown us all that when we participate we canincrease the pool of viable candidates to include those who eschew thewell-worn path of establishment politics and, rather, seek a new road to takethis great nation down.  GovernorHuckabee is the example all future unknowns need to feel like they have achance. The more people who we have to choose from, the better off we are.These candidates may not win, but they expand the discussion and theyinvigorate the electorate. 

Mike Huckabee’s time as a Presidential candidate may soon beover for the time being, but his candidacy is a testimony to the Americandemocratic system, to our political processes (as convoluted as they sometimesseem) and to our citizens. He has shown us that our election process is anexcellent means of selecting candidates. 

Thanks again for coming, Governor.  We’ll look forward to seeing you again. And next time, maybewe’ll be ready for you.

My guests will be Dan McGinn, Newsweek columnist and author of HOUSE LUST: AMERICA'S OBSESSION WITH OUR HOMES, and Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News. I'll also talk to Matt Lewis from Townhall.com about the SC and LA primaries and how the campaigns are going now.

As I reflect on the personal characteristics which hasten to subvert my character and which I find unseemly in my children, the one trait I dislike the most is an attitude of entitlement. And as I look around I see my family is not its sole possessor. I lament that we seem to have become a nation of individuals who feel entitled to so much. Undoubtedly, a contributing factor is the attitude behind the old American adage, “I just want my child to have it better than I had it.”  So parents, wanting to provide for their children, give them things instead of teaching their children to earn them. But do we really want our children to have it better than we had it?  If you were to ask me this very question, I would tell you that what I really want is for my children to “be  better people” than I, not “have it better” than I. And yet, so often, I behave in accordance with the latter.
 
A sense of entitlement has permeated our attitude as Americans.  Even those of us who are small-government, conservative, Republican (labels, labels, labels) find ourselves addicted to government, and, like crack addicts, we can’t even begin to imagine weaning ourselves off of this addiction.
 
Take health care for example.  Many will tell you that we have a health care crisis in our country and that all citizens must have health insurance.  The preferred delivery method may differ based on who you talk to, but the premise is the same.  In fact, a recent advertisement in Newsweek for the AARP said, “Everybody has the right to affordable quality health care….” Is that true?  If so, why is it true? What part of our societal or governmental structure makes health care a right?  
 
We might visit the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Does THIS entitle us to health care?  This phrase, from the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution, provides us with no legal basis for such an argument. Searching the Constitution itself we find it, too, void of such provisions.
 
So what is the source of our sense of entitlement to health insurance? Unfortunately, our sense of entitlement is a fabrication of the times.  We are frustrated that there isn’t universal health care, certainly, but let’s remember that frustration comes from unmet expectations.  When we expect something we begin to feel we have a right to it and when that right is denied we feel disappointment and frustration.  
 
Politicians have been creating this expectation for years by promising all Americans universal health care. These campaign promises have created a belief that we have a right to universal health care. But as much as I want it, I can’t find any inherent basis for that sense of entitlement.  The American way is democratic and market-driven. It is the exercise of liberty in pursuit of a way of life that pleases us—the pursuit of happiness.  In the current American market place, health care IS provided for most citizens.  Access to health care benefits is the result of market forces and people’s personal choices.  If health care benefits are a goal then people should choose to pursue careers that provide them.
 
Politicians who promise universal health care reinforce this paradigm of health care rights and create an electorate frustrated by unmet expectations. Addressing health care as a reward for achieving a certain professional or vocational benchmark would be a more realistic approach and more consistent with the American free market system. As much as a caring and compassionate people would like to view it otherwise, health care is simply another benefit provided to employees like a company car.
 
Even those with insurance are victims of our sense of entitlement because, first and foremost, insurance companies exist to make a profit.  There is no intrinsic attitude of benevolence, compassion or philanthropy. Insurance companies exist to receive our premiums, invest them and hold the profits, all while hoping that consumers don’t make claims against their policies.  It’s corporate gambling.  But because health insurance deals with life and death we expect that insurance companies will be sympathetic to our claims for benefits. But they simply live by the benefits handbook. If a certain level of benefits is paid for then (theoretically) the insurance companies pay out a certain level of benefits. The attitude of the insurance companies, and rightly so, is that if the consumer wants to change the conditions of the wager, that is, the insured wants the potential for a higher payoff on a bet with longer odds, then the insured must make a greater wager by paying more in health care premiums.  A small wager on the part of the consumer will never yield a large payout by the “house.” Low premiums simply cannot buy us access to treatment for every medical issue we will face in our lives.
 
Having a son with autism who is routinely denied benefits, I can, at times, find myself arguing for his benefits on the basis of compassion, beseeching the insurance company, “How can you deny my son access to the health care he needs to get better?” The real answer--that no insurance company will say publicly--is, “Mr. Kleber, you lost the bet. You didn’t wager enough to win the payout you’re looking for.”  My attitude, in these cases, reflects a sense of entitlement on my behalf. (Quite the quandary I find myself in now, isn’t it?)
 
It IS a shame that all people don’t have health insurance, but not because the government is remiss in its obligation to provide it, but because the lack thereof is reflective of the American emphasis on profit over people, lives, and relationships. Certainly, if employer-provided health insurance becomes universal the cost of consumer goods will rise to offset these corporate expenditures, but taxes might go down as federal, state and local governments became less responsible for the uninsured.  But this ought not be an economic discussion. It ought to be a discussion about an America that values life and puts its money where its mouth is.
 
As an authentically conservative, pro-life American, I would hold in great esteem a government that consistently values the protection of life.  Not because Americans are entitled to it, but because our collective moral compass compels us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.
 
Until such time, however, we find that the determination of who has health insurance and who doesn’t is left to the individual.  Choices have consequences. Americans who eschew education will find themselves in jobs without health insurance. Americans who make poor choices will find themselves without health care. Some people say this isn’t fair.  But no one wants life to be fair. They want it to be unfair in their favor. It would be unfair if someone received a benefit without paying for it. It would be unfair for someone to take that which they haven’t earned.  What IS fair is that all Americans can have access to some level of health care benefits even today. They simply need to learn how to access it—through education, hard work, and character.
 
So therein lies our solution. Our goal should not be to reinforce the growing sense of entitlement by providing universal health care. It should be to teach values and morals; to teach the relationship between choices and consequences; to reinforce long-term thinking and planning; to teach personal responsibility and accountability. These are the premiums that must be paid to access health care in the United States.

On Kicking the Anthill with Drexel Kleber and D.R. McCale our guests will be Alissa Priddle Senior News Editor for Car and Driver Magazine to talk about the Detroit Auto Show starting this week and Bill Milliken who is the author of THE LAST DROPOUT and the founder of the Communities in Schools programs endorsed by the Gates Foundation and the Carter Center. These guests will elaborate on discussions about Huckabee’s viability and the importance of improving education in America.

Maybe it’s the overall,general sense of dissatisfaction with the current President that brought out somany candidates so early in the 2008 campaign.  Whatever the reason, with so many choices and so much time,I’m taking more interest than ever in trying to evaluate the candidatescurrently in the competition.  Butsomething interesting is happening on my way to November 4, 2008—I’m evaluatingmyself more intensely than the candidates.  In looking for a candidate who I believe can best lead ourgreat nation I am finding that I really must begin with “what do I believe?” 

I’m conservative. But doesbeing “conservative” make me “a conservative?” I think not, and herein lies myproblem.  Since the advent of thecolor television and the computer, we’ve all been reduced to labels -- “BlueStates,” “Red States,” “liberals,” “conservatives,” “democrats,” and“republicans,” as if each of these could be used interchangeably, so that today“a conservative” equals “a republican.” But is “a conservative” necessarily “conservative? 

The distinction becomesincreasingly important when the Republican front-runners, Mitt Romney, RudyGiuliani and John McCain, have some very non-conservative values.  Can I—will I--support a candidate whosevalues differ so greatly from my own?  

The “Republican equalsconservative” paradigm is giving authentic conservatism a bad name.  David Greenberg wrote in the NY Times(How Bush Stayed True to Conservatism, May 15) “….so few were the obstaclesthat conservatism was able to run amok. The result—in the assessment of notjust liberals but also other observers—has been disaster: a mess of a war, thefailure to plan for Hurricane Katrina, the erosion of the church-state wall,widening inequality, the loss of civil liberties including habeas corpus, andscores of other ills…This was the fruit of modern American conservatism.”  Notwithstanding Mr. Greenberg’s faultylogic (that’s an issue for another article), he pins the problem on“conservatism” not Republicans.  

Additionally, David Brooks writingin the New York Times (April 29, Grim Old Party) about the stagnation of theGOP says, “As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown into acollection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility.”  While this may well true of the RepublicanParty, it is not true of conservatism. In fact, authentic conservatives simply make up one of many groups thattoday find a home in the Republican Party. But the collective movement of thesespecial interest groups does not define conservatism. 

This very close identitymakes it difficult for authentic conservatives to disagree with Republicanpolitics. We might be aligned with the Republicans on a great many things, butthe current usage of the word puts authentic conservatives in the uncomfortableposition of feeling like traitors if we stand opposed to Republicanpolicies.  A recent Newsweekarticle profiled the descendents of Presidents Eisenhower andRoosevelt--presidents more in touch with authentic conservatism than any we’vehad since Ike left office--noting their dismay with the Republican Party andtheir willingness to consider not supporting a Republican in 2008.  Are these people traitors to “modernAmerican conservatism” or Republicanism or are they steadfast adherents toauthentic conservatism? 

Another dynamic at work isthe name calling talk radio.  Manywho generally agree with Republican politics often find themselves in generalagreement with Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Michael Savage, Laura Ingrahamand other hosts of “conservative” talk radio (or shall we call it RepublicanTalk Radio?).  Moreover, asfrequent listeners, they hear the way the hated Democrats are belittledwhenever they dare to call and voice an opinion.  I believe many Republicans have come to fear being identifiedwith Democratic politics in any way, lest they should find themselves scornedby Republican talk radio listeners who are parroting the entertainment theyhear on the airwaves.  Talk radio,in this way, has served to further polarize America by devaluing opinions thatare not the deepest shade of red. 

Mr. Greenberg’s dismay overconservatism is a theft and abuse of truly conservative ideals.  However, being conservative myself, Imust acknowledge my tacit facilitation of the theft since I have not defendedthe word “conservative” with the proper vehemence.  I have allowed differing factions to borrow this term inorder to promote themselves only to discover that their use of the word hasworn it out and rendered it meaningless. So the time has come for authentic conservatives to take our adjectiveback and restore the word to its previous luster. 

Consequently, conservativepeople must ask some hard questions such as: “Being conservative, must Isupport the Republican-led conflict in Iraq?” If I decide that I am a conservative or a Republican, almost certainly.  (Just ask Senator Hagel how Republicansagainst the conflict are received.) But if I conclude that I am authenticallyconservative, my options open up. In 1800 John Adams angered his Federalist Party leadership by notsupporting a war with France.  TheFederalists saw to his ouster but President Adams knew that he had done theright thing by avoiding a disastrous war. Upon his return home to Massachusetts he stated, “Great is the guilt ofan unnecessary war.” 

Conservative people generallyeschew war as wasteful—a liberal use of our most valuable resources, mainly ourcitizens.  But conservative peoplealso know that in order to conserve the higher values in a community sometimesan investment of blood is required, and this may be just such a time (this ismy position on this particular conflict in the Middle East).  However, conservative people alsounderstand that discretion is often the better part of valor and conservatism,resting confidently on the successes of the past and learning from previousfailures, has nothing to prove by wanton displays of strength and power.  It is liberalism, not authenticconservatism, which uses resources today, in order to protect today, withoutregard to the future.  

Even intelligent,authentically conservative thinkers will disagree on the necessity of theconflict in Iraq.  My point todayis not to answer that question, but this one: are you conservative or are you a conservative? If the former, then I contend you have significantly more latitude inthe expression of your conservative views than the Republican Party’s threeleading candidates provide you. Thoroughly evaluating the many Republican candidates for the Presidencyin 2008 may help you discover an authentically conservative candidate outsideof Mr. Giuliani, Governor Romney or Senator McCain.  Furthermore, I think it’s time that authenticallyconservative people pay attention to what’s going on in the Democratic Party aswell.  If someone as traditionallynon-conservative as Mr. Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, we may beforced to look for authentically conservative credentials of the Democraticcandidates in order to find the least objectionable candidate. 

Authentic conservatism isbridge building and desirable in both blue and red communities. A candidate whounderstands this and builds his or her vision for America in 2016 (when twoterms would be concluded) on these authentically conservative values stands agood chance of healing perceived, polarizing differences in our country andrestoring America to its esteemed position as the legitimate leader of theglobal community.