The evolution of an aging actor into THE icon of Fundamental Conservatism was far more emblematic than first thought. Fundamental Conservatism, the melding of the certainty and emotion of fundamental Christianity with extreme political conservatism, is now collapsing onto a canvas of perpetual war, a drowned city and a deeply divided citizenry. What was to be a Thousand Year Conservative Empire morphed into a disastrous forty year economic and social experiment. In the beginning, this experiment was like a trip to an expensive theme park: made us feel good; cost a lot of money and produced nothing tangible. Now, we are more like the drug addict waking up in detox: depressed, measurably weaker and counting the costs of our dependency.
I was living in Sacramento California when Ronald Reagan was governor. California had one of the best education systems in America. I was living in Washington, DC when Ronald Reagan was elected president of the United States. California no longer had the best public school system in the country but the United States did have the best air traffic control system in the world. See where I am going? Now, I read that our air traffic control system is in deep trouble.
I was a teenager when John F. Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." The WWII generation was in its prime and ruled the country. That generation was formed in the Great depression and fired in WWII. I listened to that generation in the barber shops, diners, church picnics etc. I knew exactly where JFK came from when he said the above. During the depression there was much pain and poverty but there was even more cooperation and sharing. I heard stories of grocers who carried food bills for years, of food mysteriously turning up on porches, of jobs not needed but still existing to ensure a man did not have to take a hand out. Then WWII came. The clouds were seen on the horizon but the attack at Pearl Harbor came as a shock. What did the country do? What it literally had been doing. It pulled together as a team -- E Pluribus Unum, from the many one.
The US WWII effort was amazing from industrial production, a transport ship a day etc, to its vast deployed armies. How did it happen? How did this country come together and cooperate so quickly? Nazi Germany's economy was not fully militarized until 1944; the US was almost there by late 1942. Talking and listening to these men and women I knew, they relied on what worked. Try anything; evaluate results and act. They realized that often the "perfect" could be the enemy of the "good." There may be other better ways to take that hill but then again maybe not. The whole object was to take that hill and quickly. Results mattered, not rhetoric. They learned lessons in the military: you are often as strong as your weakest teammate; mistakes can cost and/or ruin lives and what helps one usually helps all. This is how they approached the post war years. The WWII era GI bill was a classic example. The problem was: what to do with all the soldiers returning home with no mission or employment? Their answer was one of the biggest social programs in US history. The GI Bill paid veterans a stipend while being educated or trained and the same bill paid for that education or training. It was a major success and generated far more revenue than was ever expended on it. Was it perfect, no. Did it produce results, yes. From that cadre of students, the US developed into the world's indisputable superpower. Taxes were high, as were returns. Their generation knew the value of both that "vision" thing AND that "results" thing.
Ronald Reagan sold Fundamental Conservatism on the "vision" thing. But what it lacked and where the seeds of its own destruction were buried was in the "results" thing. "Back to the past" is hardly a strong rallying cry. Marketing Fundamental Conservatism was based on emotion and many of its techniques, methods and even rhetoric were borrowed from religious fundamentalism. The fatal flaw here was that they forgot that religion, at its most basic level, does not have to prove results. To date no one has returned from the afterlife demanding return of their donations. The conservatives concentrated on emotional issues such as god, guns and gays while promising tax cuts. Ronald Reagan replaced a very weak president, a decaying Democratic Party and very high tax rates. The road was clear and Reagan delivered. It was the "vision" thing. People had pride. His first cabinet was among the best in our history. Then, in the second term, the rot began. The underpinning of Fundamental Conservatism is a return to a time and a history that never existed. This disconnect led to a hollow government where it was everyone for themselves, winner take all. Dick Chaney took Haliburton. Then Bush the First took office. He was a classic WWII generation man. He believed in government service. He believed in mutual progress and a strong country. He did not support Fundamental Conservatism and was summarily defeated by lack of support and right wing opposition. The Clinton administration's pragmatic and real politic approach held Fundamental Conservatism at bay. But the crazed Fundamental Conservative machine, mad for power and justification, continued to tear the country apart. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in 2000. Total Control of the presidency and both houses of Congress. At the pinnacle of their success, as so often happens, their fatal flaw began to cause their downfall: the "results" thing.
Fifty years ago the Soviet Union launched the world's first satellite, sputnik, changing the world and impacting the US no less than 9/11. The US was shocked. Frightened politicians screamed the country was too soft. National leaders accused the education system of letting down the country. Commentators questioned if a free society could compete with a totalitarian society. Communism was going to defeat the US. What was the reaction of the WWII generation and the government? The country buckled down and took solid steps toward retooling our education system especially with regard to science and education. The government diverted resources to a space race and the politicians dedicated the American people to defeating the Soviet Union at all levels. Goals were set; benchmarks set and the people ready. I remember US rockets slowly crumpling onto the launching pad in fiery balls. The beginnings were at best rough but US leaders and citizens persevered and set an even higher goal: man on the moon in ten years. It took twelve years through an incredible effort involving every segment of society.
Compare that epoch struggle with the "war against terror." The only segment of society involved in "Bush's War" is our overextended and abused troops and their families. No specific goals, no targets, no involvement by the society at large. The Bush Regime touts this as the struggle of our generation. Since Bush and I are of the same generation, I am tremendously offended that he would even compare our pursuit of a motley group of terrorists attacking the US to what was the defining struggle of our generation, the Cold War. The survival of the entire globe depended upon the outcome of that struggle. We succeeded without a nuclear exchange or all out conflict, not making light of the causalities from cold war battlefields like Korea, Vietnam and many others. Now we return to the actor and emotion rather than pragmatism and results. Results do matter! The perfect can be the enemy of the good! To survive and prosper we must move from "feel good" Fundamental Conservatism to getting dirty and getting results.
Simple questions. Is our transportation infrastructure the best in the world as it was in 1966 (the year Reagan was elected governor of California)? Is our education system the best in the world as it was in 1966? Is our manufacturing base (a key element of national security) the best in the world as it was in 1966? Is our healthcare establishment the best in the world as it was in 1966? The answers are a simple no. What Fundamental Conservatism did was use up the older generations' investments and either fail to replace that investment or provided a shoddy replacement. By basing the brunt of their appeal on social issues like gays, guns and flag while waging "wars" like the "war on drugs" or the "war on terror" all they provide is emotion; results are not required and criteria for success is not welcome. The goal is always open ended so there can be no failure but there can be no success.
What must be done? Someone must lead. We must realize what the WWII generation realized: people need a challenge and an achievable goal. Nearly every military NCO and officer realizes that what keeps soldiers motivated is pride in being part of a large organization dedicated to a greater good. Almost every parent realizes the often unspoken need to leave their child a better world than their world. Fundamental Conservatism offered empty promises, hot emotion and the goal of more for me. There was no better future only the search for a past that didn't exist. We need a party and a president who will present an achievable, better future and a plan for a better, stronger country. The American people are hungry for a challenge and willing to sacrifice to build a better world. Where is the leader who will ask them to answer the hard questions and develop achievable plans?
Follow Hal Donahue on Twitter: www.twitter.com/haldonahue
