Fixing Our Own Dysfunction: Five Traits to Demand in Politicians

photo from ivn.com

Washington's dysfunction is really our dysfunction. We are responsible for whom we send to represent us. If we are intellectually lazy partisan hacks, our politicians will be as well. We fix our own dysfunction by sending better politicians to Washington!

Sending better politicians to Washington requires us to reconsider which leadership traits we prioritize. Given the lack of admirable politicians in DC these days, let's go back in history to find a leader worthy of emulation.

One such leader was John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts.

Here are five important attributes of John Quincy's that we should insist in seeing in our elected officials.

Inclusiveness

“...I have followed [my] convictions with a single eye to the interests of the whole nation…”

John Quincy insisted that he represented the whole nation--not special interests. His radical inclusiveness lasted throughout his career. As a young diplomat, John Quincy berated a senior British official for attacking John Quincy's political rivals in a previous administration back home (a lesson modern officials should heed). Toward the end of his career when elected to the House, he refused to affiliate with a political party. He took up the cause of the United States.

Many politicians today prefer identity politics and special interests. John Quincy knew, however, that although political factions are a feature of our politics, America's best leaders bring people together.

Intellectual Curiosity

"As Czar Alexander had learned, few Western diplomats could match John Quincy's mastery of classical languages, history, and modern languages."

John Quincy loved books and learning. He knew Latin, Greek, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, and German. One winter as a young man, he read dozens and dozens of dense volumes on classics, history, and economics. His intellectual curiosity lasted his entire life and led him to help establish American astronomy and the Smithsonian Institutes. One other point: he loathed academicians. His mother commiserated with him, writing, "Whilst salaries are so small, it cannot be expected that gentlemen of the first abilities will devote their leaves to [teaching]."

Constituents should examine candidates' speeches and debates to determine their relative grasp of issues. They might even ask about candidates’ reading habits, though reading habits may be reflected in speeches and debates. John Quincy's learning made him a brilliant orator, but he struggled connecting with the common people (not everyone appreciated his Latin puns). Just because a politician has some trouble connecting with voters at first, don't dismiss him or her immediately.

Humility

"For the good of my country -- not for the good of my career."

Humble service, not lust for power, motivated John Quincy. He was a statesmen. The difference between the statesmen and politician, in his view, was that statesmen accepted--not sought--public office. He spent his career concerned that he didn't have enough knowledge and wisdom for the positions into which we was appointed. He even declined a justiceship on the Supreme Court due to his fear that he lacked sufficient legal knowledge. He was a Harvard lawyer.

It's hard to find humility in politics. A politician who is self-aware enough to understand the limits of his or her knowledge and what is knowable would be a tremendous asset to the Republic. The problem is, this politician won't speak so easily in soundbytes.

Capable

"...America's most skilled diplomat and intelligence gleaner."

John Quincy was effective. He served as diplomat, treaty negotiator, senator, ambassador, secretary of state, president, litigator, orator, and representative. At 16-years old, the U.S. minister to Russia made John Quincy his personal assistant. Adams, as a young lawyer, defended President Washington. He rebuked the populist despotism of the French Revolution, attacking Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Jacobin extremism. President Washington named him Minister to the Hague for his effort, where he spent six hours per day gathering intelligence, writing reports, and building the expertise to become America's greatest European Affairs expert. James Monroe appointed him Secretary of State, where he conceived of a famous American foreign policy called the Monroe Doctrine.

Just about the only thing many politicians are capable of today is raising money and winning elections. There is, however, a positive trend of former public servants stepping up to run for office. Let's hope the trend continues.

Principled

"You are supported by no party; you have too honest a heart, too independent a mind, and too brilliant talents to be trusted by any man who is under the dominion of party maxims..."

John Quincy first allegiance was to truth and justice. John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage recognized his principled fortitude. While in the Senate, he opposed his own party to save President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. As President, his belief in the improving the common good and national links led him to advocate for national infrastructure and science--which made him very unpopular. As a statesmen, he shamed other politicians who turned to foreign powers in support of their narrow, partisan objectives. But his two most precious principles were the rights of life and ordered liberty. As a result, John Quincy became one of America's first and most important abolitionists. He defended the escaped Amistad slaves in front of the Supreme Court and gave President Lincoln (who served with Adams in the House of Representatives) the legal basis for his Emancipation Proclamation. Although hated in some quarters, his policy positions made him revered in most parts of America. His death impacted the nation as much as the deaths of Washington and Franklin.

The dramatic lack of principle on display in American politics is heart-breaking. Most politicians are little more than actors playing a part--shrill and self-serving. Their positions are not principled; they're based on public opinion and party preferences. This is shameful.

Conclusion

"You must have one great purpose of existence...to make your talents and your knowledge most beneficial to your country and most useful to mankind."

John Quincy's remarkable life and service to the United States make him worthy of further study. For future reference, please pick up a copy of Harlow Giles Unger's biography, John Quincy Adams, whose pages provide the source of the above quotations and facts.

We should insist on future statesmen displaying those traits of John Quincy Adams: inclusiveness, intellectual curiosity, humility, capability, and principled fortitude.

Baby Boomer Foreign Affairs: A Critical Assessment

This article is dedicated to Capt. Christopher “Tripp” Zanetis, who died in Iraq during combat operations on March 15, 2018.

The Constitution defines Government’s mandate in foreign affairs: ensure the American people’s safety, prosperity, and liberty. U.S. foreign policy from 1945-1990 contributed to those goals. American policy was so successful that President Clinton’s December 1999 national security strategy noted that “America [was] at the height of its influence.” Today, however, the American people are less safe, less prosperous, and less free than they were. What happened?

As the 25-year Baby Boomer reign enters its final act, Millennials and Gen-X should assess the contexts, challenges, policies, and implementation of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (spoiler alert: they all get participation trophies). We should draw lessons for ourselves as we prepare to lead during what may be a turbulent period in the Republic’s history.

The Clinton Administration: Strategic Drift

The Clinton Administration’s policy context was the strategic drift caused by the Soviet Union’s downfall. The absence of America’s primary adversary presented the Clinton Administration with two dilemmas. First, the Administration needed to justify continued global leadership to an isolationist-inclined public. Second, without an organizing principle, the Administration struggled to prioritize its goals.

America’s strategic drift did not reflect a lack of challenges. The Clinton Administration grappled with arms control and non-proliferation, a no-fly zone, a near-war on the Korean peninsula, genocide in Europe and Africa, economic threats posed by new information technology’s application to economic espionage, and Islamist terrorist attacks. Compared to the Soviet menace, however, America faced little resistance to its dominance.

The Clinton Administration’s policy response arrested America’s strategic drift. During a 1993 speech, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake promulgated the policy of enlargement. The policy advocated for expanding free market democracies and supported NATO’s expansion. To signal the continued requirement for American leadership and create a framework for prioritizing goals, the Clinton Administration expanded the definition of America’s interests to include vital interests, important national interests such as economics and trade, and humanitarian and other interests.

Implementation focused on multilateral diplomatic and economic tools—military power was less emphasized. In response to civil war in Somalia and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration resisted the temptation to deepen U.S. military involvement. Where it did engage militarily, the Administration made certain that it operated within an international framework (e.g., in 1999, the United States led a NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia). Economically, the Clinton Administration negotiated new free trade agreements: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, and passed legislation outlawing economic espionage. Diplomatically, the Clinton Administration pursued START II, the NATO-Russia founding act, a joint U.S.-Russia launch of the International Space Station, and an attempt to broker Middle East peace.

By 2001, the American people faced no major threats. America’s economy was booming. Federal spending was reduced and diverted to domestic priorities. Finally, the American people’s liberty was so secure that the public began to take it for granted. However, the Clinton Administration’s foreign policies were questionably relevant to these outcomes.

There are three lessons from the Administration’s foreign policy. First, action is not always better than inaction. The opportunities presented by the Soviet’s downfall enticed action; however, NATO’s expansion into the former Soviet bloc carried longer-term risk. Today, Moscow justifies its aggression as a response to NATO’s expansion into its near-abroad (the issue is hotly debated). Second, prudence is a virtue. Critics lambasted the Administration for withdrawing from Somalia and failing to act in Rwanda. However, the application of American military power in the absence of clear objectives and legal basis would risk overextension, mission creep, and drain resources. Third, everything cannot be a priority. The Administration focused limited resources on a range of issues. The application of too-few resources on too many issues may have contributed to the failure of U.S. intelligence to detect a deadly terrorist threat.

The Bush Administration – GWOT as Grand Strategy

The Bush Administration’s policy context was the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks halted America’s strategic drift. For the first time since the Cold War, Americans wondered whether they were safe. Partisan politics of the 1990s and the 2000 presidential election fell away and the American people united briefly. Internationally, nations condemned terrorism. NATO made ready for war in Afghanistan. Traditional foes such as Russia, Iran, and Libya offered support or placation.

The Bush Administration’s strategic challenge was rebuilding a capability to respond to an unknown threat. The Americans did not understand the terrorists’ plans, capabilities, and intentions. Further, they did not understand to the extent to which terrorist groups received weaponry, financial assistance, or material support from hostile nation-states. As a result, the Administration could not anticipate what further attacks were on the horizon.

The Bush Administration’s response declared war on terror and shaped its policy around a confrontation between good and evil. Anyone not “with us” was “against us.” Fearful of another attack, America’s leaders resolved to address terror’s underlying cause and implemented the Freedom Agenda. A congressional majority authorized military action against Saddam Hussein. America determined to bring democracy to the Middle East.

Implementation emphasized military action. Counterterrorism substituted for grand strategy. Political strategy and diplomacy were deemphasized (the United States withdrew from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol). The Congress increased resources significantly and made reforms to intelligence sharing and coordination. The Administration adapted circumspect intelligence and detention practices. Finally, the Congress expanded the government’s authority to collect information on threats and debated a domestic intelligence agency.

The Administration did not forsake completely the non-military instruments of power. America established the Proliferation Security Initiative and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. It negotiated new trade agreements, including the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). In Afghanistan and to a lesser extent, Iraq, it built Coalitions to support stability operations, police and military training, and civil society engagements.

In retrospect, the Bush Administration did not advance America’s safety, prosperity, and liberty. Osama bin Laden was still at large and two wars cost many lives and nearly $5 trillion. Economically, government spending grew and a crash in the U.S. real estate market precipitated the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Finally, the American public stopped taking liberties for granted. Voters asked whether government exceeded legal limits in intelligence, surveillance, and detention activities.

There are three lessons from the Bush Administration. First, prioritization was key to success. The counterterrorism priority brought policy attention and resources that built a formidable capability. Second, policymakers should set objectives within constitutionally-prescribed goals. In a misguided effort to solve Islamist terrorism, the Administration tried to bring about democracy using the military instrument of power. As such action is not a constitutionally-prescribed goal, the Republicans lost the 2006 mid-term elections and eventually the presidency to an anti-war candidate (President Obama). Finally, hubris and emotion must be avoided. America's relative power and righteous anger let it to overreach. Overreach destroys empires.

The Obama Administration – Naïve Reset

The Obama Administration’s context was its perceived need to reset America’s foreign relations (e.g., by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility). President Obama repudiated President Bush’s perceived unilateralism during his 2009 inaugural address:

“[Earlier generations] understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

Partisanship reached fevered pitch as rivals and critics accused the Administration of undertaking an “apology” tour.

The Administration’s strategic challenges included a number of inherited and unforeseen crises. It inherited a strong CT capability but Osama bin Laden was at large. It also inherited two wars, a financial crash, and growing tensions with Russia and China. The Administration grappled the war in Libya, the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war, Israel’s reaction to Iranian nuclear capabilities, a failed reset with Russia and Russia’s annexing of Crimea, China’s building man-made islands in contested international waters, and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The 2001-era domestic political consensus evaporated and complicated America’s ability to respond. Financially, the Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 and reduced national security spending.

The Obama Administration’s policy response reduced the ambition of U.S. strategic objectives. Washington redoubled its focus on the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan while drawing down U.S. forces from the “war of choice” in Iraq. It put public timelines on both conflicts. It focused on building local forces while reducing its own requirements. Unilateral actions were limited to attacks against high-value targets such as Osama bin Laden. The Administration saw America’s future in the Asia-Pacific and shifted focus from the Middle East. However, as each crisis generated novel dilemmas, trade-offs, and pressures, the Administration’s decision-making became gridlocked.

Implementation emphasized diplomacy. The Administration accepted risk in the timeliness of achieving its objectives by working “by, with, and through” local security partners. It negotiated temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, normalized relations with Myanmar and Cuba, negotiated the Paris climate accords, and a pursued a failed Middle East peace process It failed to prevent North Korea’s nuclearization, maintain America’s long-standing partnership with Egypt, and resolve the Syrian civil war. Economically, the Administration implemented strong sanctions against Iran, negotiated the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), and sanctioned Russia. Militarily, the Administration built an international Coalition to counter ISIS, enabled Europe’s military intervention in Libya, and provided limited assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. It also authorized freedom of navigation operations in contested waters of the South China Sea and sold arms to Taiwan.

The Administration’s results were mixed. Like the Bush Administration, the Obama team overreached with its preferred instrument of power: diplomacy. When diplomacy was not underwritten by a credible threat, foreign powers viewed the United States as feckless. Still, by 2016, the organized terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland was eradicated. The Iranian nuclear program was curbed. After withdrawing from Iraq, the Administration redeployed and pushed back ISIS from its physical caliphate. Libya remained a source of instability. Tensions grew with Russia and China. America’s prosperity was returning, though the economy lagged. Finally, the debate over civil liberties intensified as partisanship increased and accusations of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election came to the fore.

There are three primary lessons from the Obama Administration. First, persuasion and political strategy are cost-effective instruments of power. In 2009, the Obama Administration’s no-conditions outreach to Iran prompted a politically-costly public rejection. However, Iran’s rejection painted Obama as the reasonable actor. Coupled with provocative Iranian rhetoric, the Administration parried Iranian actions to rally the world in crippling Iran’s economy. Second, geography is essential. Turkey reminded Washington of geography when it let refugees flow into Europe in response to Washington’s working with the Syrian Kurds. The resulting pressures created a wave of new political parties that are threatening European democracy. Finally, American deterrence begins and ends in the White House. Washington’s failure to enforce its Syria red-line diminished its credibility. Iranian influence expanded. Russia deepened its influence in the Middle East. China increased its aggressive actions in disputed territory waters.

Strategic Assessment

U.S. foreign policy over the past 25 years has been a disaster. The United States stumbled after goals well beyond government’s constitutional mandate. It used the instruments of power in an unbalanced way and lurched from strategic drift to militarism to feckless diplomacy. Moreover, America failed to anticipate 9/11. Then, it overreacted by invading two countries. Finally, America then over-learned that lesson and the resulting timidity invited aggression everywhere. The world is far more dangerous as a result. As the risk of catastrophic global war grows, statesmen and stateswomen are rare in Washington.

Threat Picture

Looking forward, the United States faces intensifying competition from nation-state actors. Russia and China seek to revise the U.S.-led international order. North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile operations menace international peace. Iran’s unchecked expansion risks provoking a new regional war. The Middle East’s civil wars provide opportunities for terror recruitment and safe-havens and undermine a lasting defeat for ISIS. The wars’ resulting refugee flows destabilize neighboring countries and pressure western democracies with complex social and political challenges. Finally, the U.S. trade deficit remains high and partisan politics undermine meaningful dialogue on climate issues.

America’s allies are also responding. With uncertain American leadership, Europe hastened to implement the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF)— moves that threaten the transatlantic alliance. Saudi Arabia led its Coalition to stalemate in Yemen and isolated Qatar. Turkey’s operations in Syria risks the ISIS campaign. South Korea advances an uncoordinated diplomatic track with North Korea. All of these developments generate new escalation risks.

Charting a New Course

It took America 25 years to damage its standing in the world, so charting a new course will likewise be a generational undertaking. It begins with us—Millennials and Gen X—revisiting our strategic thinking and learning lessons from our predecessors. We should seek to align ends, ways, and means within constitutionally-prescribed goals. We might improve our arts of persuasion and political strategy. We should account for the “permanent things” of human nature and history (and, I would add geography) in our calculations. We should abandon partisan ideology and replace it with Roman virtue (energetic manliness, piety toward ancestors, family, and country, and prudence). We must drop the arrogant belief that all problems have American solutions and all opportunities should be acted upon. Finally, we distinguish between interests and preferences and adjust our policy appetites accordingly.

We also need institutional reform. The national security enterprise is ill-equipped to respond to nation-state competitors. Our generation should look to reform the 1947 National Security Act. Other than special interests, few benefit from the behemoth bureaucracy we have today: a Department of Homeland Security with 22 subordinate agencies; a Director of National Intelligence with 17 subordinate agencies, a Department of Justice comprised of multiple enforcement agencies, and a Department of Defense comprised of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, three military departments, four military services (possibly five services someday), 10 combatant commands, the National Guard Bureau, and dozens of agencies and field activities. Leaders should set a goal for America’s military to become twice as lethal at half the cost (if the Congress was wise, it would allocate the other half of that budget to NASA so that it might tackle some of the real long-term threats to safety, prosperity, and liberty).

Finally, future leaders must drive social reform. We must strengthen a just domestic order through bold steps in campaign finance and gerrymandering reform. We should lead public opinion and debate away from platitudes to, as Secretary Mattis demands, defining problems to “a Jesuit’s level of satisfaction.” Last, we must educate ourselves in history (especially of antiquity), civic virtue, and the millennia-long evolution of western civilization from Jerusalem, to Athens, Rome, London, and, finally, to Philadelphia, that produced America’s constitutional republican order. If we act upon these lessons over the next decade, America will strengthen and preserve itself for posterity. If we fail, we will not earn us a participation trophy.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Boomer Bust: An Appeal from the New Conservatives to the Old

Populist Justice: Murder of Marie Louise of Savoy During the September Massacres

Dear Boomers,

One of the biggest disgraces of your generation’s 25-year reign is your flirtation with populism. This scourge is bubbling up again across Europe and America, and some of you (both on the political left and right) are encouraging it. History shows that stirring up popular emotions may serve short-term political goals, but ultimately they unleash the uncontrollable demon of mob violence. 

Three deficiencies allow populism to seduce you. First, you became lazy. Russell Kirk notes that “…one arrives at principle through comprehension of nature and history…”, but you find principle by path of least resistance: cable news, social media, and party platitudes. Second, you are consumed with anger—at Obama, illegal immigrants, the establishment, political correctness—and some of that anger is legitimate--but it softens you for manipulation. Third, you lack humility. Humility sharpens your understanding of the boundaries of your knowledge and what is knowable. Without it, you cannot learn.

Your deficiencies make you easy prey for “sophisters, calculators, economists” and demagogues. They use you for their financial and political ends. But there is a method to fortify yourselves against demagogues: reading about histories and great statesmen. These readings will cure your lack of humility by revealing your ignorance. They will inoculate your mind against anger and laziness manipulated to someone else’s ends.

One such conservative statesmen was Edmund Burke. He was an Irishman born to a Catholic mother and a Protestant father. Burke served in the British House of Commons during a tumultuous period of political realignment across Europe and America. The American and French Revolutions were the defining events of his time. If a man’s enemies offer any clue to his convictions, Burke’s enemies included Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx.

Burke’s writings on the French Revolution form the foundation of modern conservative political thought (and, ironically, classical liberalism—more on this later). His most famous essay, “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, sparked intense interest and controversy, but in it Burke put forward core conservative principles. Speaking to a British population suffering from injustice, he warned his fellow countrymen not to follow France's path. France abandoned its virtue and would inevitably descend into mob violence. In contrast, Burke supported the American Revolution as an evolution and continuation of a just order.

Burke’s party (the Whigs) and the British public rejected him over his opposition to the French Revolution. The Whigs needed more votes after losing an election and courted supporters of the French Revolution. Burke thought the Whigs sold out for political reasons. Over time, however, Burke was vindicated. What France’s wealthy demagogues instigated as a populist movement to “drain the swamp” and free the people from a corrupt establishment devolved into the Reign of Terror and a totalitarian bloodbath. The ensuing chaos led to the rise of Napoleon—himself responsible for an additional six million deaths—and a further 50 years of revolutions and counter-revolutions.

Burke's Principles of Conservatism and their Application

Hopefully you are beginning to grasp the dangers of populism. If you do, you must do more than just reject it. You must rediscover and fight for our principles. One caveat: as a statesman, Burke never designed a comprehensive political philosophy. Instead, he always focused on the tangible and practical application of government’s actions on the people he served. We will also focus on the practical application of our principles.

Conservatism’s first principle is the sanctity of human life under natural law. Burke's reading of the new French Constitution confirmed his worst fears. Abandoning natural law, the French Constitution's supreme basis of law was the general public will. Without a check on popular will, the State had authority to define arbitrarily the relative values of human life. If you fell out of favor with public opinion, you could receive the guillotine.

The practical application of this principle causes significant controversy with the Jacobins’ heirs. They mainlined the belief that popular sentiment can define human life. This radical change facilitated history's worst revolutionary regimes (Nazis, Soviets, Maoists). Their mass murdering required flexible definitions of human (or sub-human) life. But it also led to less obvious problems. The fierce debate over whether the pre-born are considered human is one example. Additional examples include policy debates associated with the elderly, refugees, illegal immigrants, criminals, and the poor. One can detect an ugly assumption concerning the relative value of these lives in the debates.

Conservatism’s second principle is that just and ordered liberty is humanity’s birthright, but must arise through a deliberate process (unlike, say, your invasion of Iraq). Burke did not begrudge the French their liberty--he questioned the justice and process by which it came about. The French Revolution destroyed the established order and emphasized a selfish and disconnected liberty. Unordered liberty subjugates individuals to the whims of the mob.

The practical application of this principle also remains a source of intense debate. Burke acknowledged that unselfish and ordered liberty demands limitations on individuals. In this context, we should consider the 2nd amendment issue. Our just and ordered liberty already establishes restrictions on access to certain classes of weapons. You are not allowed to possess ballistic missiles or tanks or nuclear weapons, for example. But how do you compare your desire for other classes of weapons against the public’s right to life?  Spare me the pretense of countering government tyranny—that’s why you have a national guard. If you think your AR-15 will save you from an angry Uncle Sam, look up footage of drone-launched hellfire missiles. (This point of view makes me liberal because I’m conservative—see how confusing this is?)

Conservatism’s third principle requires significant humility and thus might be the most difficult for you. It emphasizes the importance of continuity over innovation in political affairs. Our obligation is to build upon humanity’s collective wisdom, accumulated across millennia, to conserve our species. New ideas should be vetted against this collective wisdom instead of pursuing radical new ideas and innovations in politics--these things are very dangerous. In fact, inventions, abstractions, metaphysical politics, and ideologies pose a fatal threat to life and liberty.

The practical application of this principle is two-fold. First, we must oppose leaders who seek to make radical changes or innovate in affairs of state.  Social grievances must be addressed; however, they must be addressed by modifying and building upon the established order and not overturning and destroying it. Second, democratic governance requires especially pious and consecrated leaders due to statesmen’s extraordinary power and trust. They must understand ancient ideas and evolution of thought that brought humanity to where it is. They must also understand how easy it is to lose everything. 

Recalled to Life

It is not too late. Burke can recall you to conservatism. Find in Burke your inner prudence and moderation—traits incompatible with the passions of populism.  Learn to overcome your laziness to see the obverse of an issue. Replace your anger with ambition and cure your lack of humility with learning.

You must rediscover your convictions. Doing so will bring consistency to your viewpoints and will allow you to transcend partisan platitudes. Burke took unpopular stands against his party for the sake of his principles. Life, liberty, and continuity must factor into your voting habits, social media posts, dinner conversations with friends, and political debates with others. Leave hypocrisy for others.

You also need to know the details. Burke did. No more maudlin sloganeering. For example, please stop complaining about abstractions like an unspecified failure to adhere to constitutional principles you probably do not understand (few do). Instead, learn the details (like what is the 21st amendment or what does Article II cover?). Then you will see through those seeking to manipulate you.

You also must understand that conservatism and liberalism need each other. As Burke wrote, the clash between reasoned liberalism and conservatism creates “…a reciprocal struggle of discordant powers [that] draws out the harmony of the universe.” This leads to compromise, which naturally begets moderation and prudence. Burke influenced classical liberalism. American liberal historian Richard Hofstadter lamented that he found Burke deep in the minds of American liberals such as Woodrow Wilson.

Finally, continuity does not mean stasis. As Kirk says, “Society must progress and prudent change is the means of social preservation.” It would behoove you, studying Burke, to no longer confuse ends and means.  Limited government, executive orders, laws and regulations, and even the U.S. Constitution itself—these must be allowed to change and evolve.  They are simply means for achieving society’s ends: life, ordered liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

America’s founding fathers, whom you profess to adore, rejected populism. They established republican governance to protect individuals from the will of the people. They knew that populism is dangerous to individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our government, whose constitution frames these ends in natural law, is the crown jewel of your inheritance. If you continue to squander it, you will condemn your children to a world of tyranny and death.

Many young people, minorities, and women detest conservatism. Older, white conservatives are dying off. Given the importance of both liberalism and conservatism for guiding social progress, a shrinking generation of new conservatives will all but guarantee revolution. We must avert this outcome. Communicating our views in a rational and logical way helps others see the importance of principled conservativism. But we must stand up in the face of political pressures. We must be brave and speak truth to power. Winston Churchill said, “Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” Edmund Burke did not compromise his principles and neither should you.