Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Hardcover)

~ (Author)
Key Phrases: heroic conservatism, outlaw regimes, President Bush, White House, Governor Bush (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From The Washington Post

Reviewed by Carl M. Cannon

On inauguration day in 1981, Ronald Reagan stood on the restored west front of the U.S. Capitol and delivered an address intended to signal the end of America's malaise. "Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength," Reagan told his countrymen. "We have every right to dream heroic dreams."

Among those inspired by such words was a studious and unprepossessing high school senior at Westminster Christian Academy in St. Louis. His name was Mike Gerson, and although his first political crush was on Jimmy Carter, he broke -- like many evangelical Christians of his generation -- with Carter and the Democrats over social issues, particularly abortion. Reagan's call to heroism drew Gerson into the GOP, but his true political love turned out to be another Republican president: George W. Bush.

Before Gerson and Bush ever met, they were thinking alike. As governor of Texas, Bush had begun using the phrase "compassionate conservatism." Gerson had worked for Chuck Colson's prison ministries and had written idealistic speeches for a succession of Republicans, including Jack Kemp, Bob Dole and former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats. On his initial trip to Austin, Gerson jotted down his goals, including helping the GOP articulate a message of social justice. In their first meeting, in April 1999, Bush's best and worst qualities -- his infectious optimism as well as his maddening cockiness -- were on display: This isn't a job interview, he told Gerson. I want you to write my announcement speech, my acceptance speech at the Republican convention and my inaugural address.

The shy, 35-year-old wordsmith was so nervous before the meeting that Bush's security detail feared he was having heart failure. Gerson did suffer a heart attack six years later; by then he was chief White House speechwriter and had overseen the drafting of all the speeches Bush mentioned, and many more. While recovering, he worked on Bush's second inaugural.

Not content to be a ghostwriter, Gerson was also a senior policy adviser to the president. After leaving the White House in mid-2006, he joined the Council on Foreign Relations and became a columnist for The Washington Post. He has now written a book that does more than defend himself and Bush. He is trying to guide his party on a post-Bush path. As Gerson sees it, the GOP won't have much of a future unless it follows the biblical enjoinder to care for those most in need.

Heroic Conservatism opens in sub-Saharan Africa with a description of people who are alive today because of Bush's efforts to battle HIV/AIDS. This tableau represents America's greatness in action, Gerson believes. He has little patience for small government conservatives who don't agree, or for pacifist liberals who use the example of Iraq to dismiss the Bush Doctrine as messianic. And just what is that doctrine?

"After five eventful years in the West Wing, I am convinced that the bold use of government to serve human rights and dignity is not only a good thing, but a necessary thing. I believe the security of our country depends on idealism abroad -- the promotion of liberty and hope as the alternatives to hatred and bitterness. I believe the unity of our country depends on idealism at home -- a determination to care for the weak and vulnerable. . . ."

This is Heroic Conservatism's mission statement, and it comes with a warning: "I believe my party . . . must carry this message of idealism and courage to a tired nation in a pivotal moment," Gerson says, "or face a severe judgment of history."

All this is presented as a "new manifesto for the Republican Party." Gerson does not seem to notice that many conservatives believe that the obvious lesson of the Bush presidency is that America needs fewer manifestos from the White House. Instead, they long for a president who understands the limitations of soaring rhetoric, the limitations of America's vast military arsenal, even the limitations of altruism.

They pine for Ronald Reagan.

When Reagan was president, movement conservatives spent a lot of time obsessing about turf battles within the White House. The much -- maligned "pragmatists" were on one side, pitted against the supposedly pure Reaganauts whose battle cry was, "Let Reagan be Reagan." In truth, Reagan was always both things -- conservative and pragmatic -- and letting Reagan really be Reagan meant helping a chief executive pursue conservative ideals in attainable ways. When the Marines' mission in Lebanon went horribly wrong, Reagan brought them home. The current administration has invoked that episode as an example of why it is important for the United States to stay the course even when the going gets tough abroad. The lesson Reagan and his team derived was that they should never have sent Marines to the Mideast in the first place.

In Heroic Conservatism, Gerson lauds Reagan for his rhetoric, but not for his realism. He praises Reagan's "evil empire" speech, for instance, and tells how Soviet political prisoners drew inspiration from it. He does not mention that George W. Bush failed to get Social Security changes, while Reagan succeeded (despite facing a Congress with more Democrats than during Bush's tenure).

In fact, a subtle umbrage toward Reaganism seeps, perhaps unconsciously, from this book. Gerson never says why -- indeed, he never admits such heresy directly -- but eventually the reason reveals itself: Gerson doesn't have much truck with the government-is-the-problem wing of his party, a libertarian branch Reagan courted. Gerson cites only a handful of offenders by name. They include Hoover Institution economist Martin C. Anderson, who urged Bush to make the GOP plank more agnostic on abortion; Grover Norquist, who sought to stitch the Reagan coalition back together by defining conservatism as the "leave us alone" coalition; and former House majority leader Dick Armey, who thought "faith-based" initiatives sounded like a Democratic idea.

Being a Democratic idea is not, to Gerson, much of an insult. He finds today's party identifications artificial and the labels "conservative" and "liberal" insufficient. The world leader he lauds most (other than Bush) is Bono, and his admiration for Catholic social thought is so deep he feels the need to let readers know that doctrinal differences prevent his conversion from evangelical Protestantism. Translating such ecumenism into partisan politics is trickier; Gerson, who energetically uses the word "evil," believes the fundamental divide in America is between "moralists" and "relativists." The future coalition he has in mind consists of religious conservatives who take seriously the Christian's duty to the poor, plus the non-pacifist wing of the Democratic Party.

If this book were offered as a rebuttal to the atheist polemics topping bestseller lists, it would be more persuasive. But Gerson is making a political call to action, and not just on AIDS. He is also making the case for the wisdom (and the continuation) of military action in Iraq. Bush insists that Iraqis want freedom as much as Americans do, and that are they entitled to it. In so saying, he is very much in step with Reagan -- and with Thomas Jefferson, for that matter. But does the Declaration of Independence obligate Americans to institute democracy in Iraq (or China, or North Korea) at the point of a gun? That is a harder sell.

Moreover, if Bush is right about this moral imperative, his obligation to plan the war correctly and prosecute it successfully is all the greater. And here is the problem with faith-based politics: Politics, as Bismarck said, is the art of the possible. Faith is nearly the opposite proposition: Faith, as St. Paul put it, is "the evidence of things not seen." And the central question raised by seven years of Bush's noble hopes and Gerson's lofty rhetoric about moralists and relativists is this: What happened to Republican realists?

Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved.

Review

"...thoughtful and provocative...you will be well-served to sit down and read this important book." -- Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT)

"A well written and engaging memoir." -- Weekly Standard

"For anyone interested in politics--this book is a must-read." -- William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard

"Gerson has been hailed as the finest presidential speechwriter in fifty years and this book shows why." -- Michael Cromartie, Vice President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

"One of the brightest thinkers in America gives us a compelling conservative manifesto..." -- Chuck Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship

"This brilliant, entertaining, and honest book repairs conservatism’s moral compass..." -- John J. DiIulio, Jr., professor, University of Pennsylvania, and First Director, White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 320 pages
• Publisher: HarperOne; 1 edition (October 30, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 006134950X
• ISBN-13: 978-0061349508
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (9 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #288,774 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A stirring, if flawed, manifesto, February 26, 2008

By	Adam Schwartz - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Since becoming a columnist for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson (former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush) has become one of the most piquant pundits in the commentariat. This book reiterates much of the substance of those columns, and is thus somewhat disappointing, as it reveals Gerson to be more a talented journalist than a sustained thinker. Nonetheless, Heroic Conservatism deserves serious attention for its efforts to outline a politics based radically on upholding human dignity.

As Gerson notes, this idea is grounded in both American notions of natural rights and Roman Catholic social teaching, with its tandem emphases on subsidiarity (which favors a decentralized polity in which government does only what civil society cannot) and solidarity (which recognizes the responsibilities that all citizens have for one another, but especially for the most vulnerable; it therefore urges a "preferential option for the poor."). Such a notion overcomes the unnatural bifurcation in American politics between a right that attends almost wholly to limiting government and therefore denies its ability to ameliorate human suffering effectively and a left that has been at the forefront of movements for social justice but is often suspicious of, or impatient with, the efforts of non-governmental institutions like traditional religion, the family, and states and localities. Gerson's call for a political vision that recognizes the legitimate role of the state in providing for the common good while respecting the value of "little platoons" in fostering social and cultural renewal will appeal to those like him who wish to be "pro-life and pro-poor...[who] have often felt homeless in the traditional camps of American politics." This hopeful exercise of the moral imagination now requires a more sustained grounding in philosophy and theology to be a convincing countermanifesto to those of the libertarians and paleo-conservatives whom he rightly chides.

Indeed, Gerson's own question--"in what sense is this approach of mine conservative?"--requires further interrogation. Gerson suggests that because his case for the existence and centrality of human dignity depends on a belief in objective truth and value, it is more likely to achieve a hearing among traditionists than among the postmodern left. That may be true enough in the immediate context, but it is not necessarily so. In "Looking Back on the Spanish War," for instance, democractic socialist George Orwell anticipated Gerson's case that without a belief in objective truth and value, the will-to-power is doomed to triumph. Those animated by Gerson's reflections should think more in terms of creating a politics that transcends the liberal-conservative dichotomy rather than attempting to work within it, even to convert a segment of it. His own heroes--such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and John Paul II--were transformative leaders precisely because they challenged the popular conventions of their day with larger, more consistent worldviews grounded in everlasting ideals.

Gerson is also so animated by belief in "eternal realities," and his insertion of the permanent things into transient political discourse is welcome. If he, or another thinker, could now work out the details of a politics "elevated by a radical concern for human rights and human dignity" to complement the imaginative architecture offered here and in his columns, the result would be embraced eagerly by those dissatified by the chronic deficiences of American politics. And the hard and unhurried work invested in such a project would be truly heroic.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Conservative thinker I can associate with., May 26, 2009

By	Oregon "Reader" (Portland, OR) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't) (Paperback)

I'm not a republican (even though I often lean their direction when I vote). I consider myself pro-life, Christian independent. I often find myself in strong disagreement with the republican party, but in his book "Heroic Conservatism", Mr. Gerson presents a view I understand and want to support. I strongly disagree with republicans that claim that government is our problem, and with democrats that believe government is responsible for all the problems. I believe in smart and efficient government that serves his people with care, compassion and respect.

For me, this book was stimulating and thought-provoking. Thank you Mr. Gerson!

9 of 14 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Disappointed, March 7, 2008

By	Bill "Bill" (USA) - See all my reviews

I was disappointed with this book. As a liberal, I was hoping to read a book that would give me a clear understanding of what it means in the post-Bush era to be a conservative. I wanted to understand the conservative vision for the United States. Unfortunately, this book did not satisfy that hope.

In terms of what I did not like about this book, let's put first things first. It is frustrating when an author quotes someone without providing any footnotes. None of the quotes provided any reference. There were some quotes that I found hard to believe. Now I am not saying that the author was not quoting accurately, but I was very interested in seeing the context of the quote. Since there were no footnotes or endnotes it would be difficult to follow up on the quote.

Also, he would state things as if they were facts, but I am not sure of the basis of those facts. For example, he noted that a person was a constitutional expert. Who says? I looked up the person on Google and I found some one with the same name who is a law professor in Florida. Even if that were the right person, which I am not sure, does that make them an expert? I could find no writings by that person. Maybe that person is a constitutional expert, but I see nothing that supports the claim.

All that aside, what I disliked the most about the book is the very heavy bias. It was more of a defense of the Bush administration than anything else. When referring to liberals they were judged most harshly. I would expect that from a liberal, but when evaluating the conservative position the author glossed over some very big moral failings. For example, he referred to what the Bush campaign did to John McCain in 2000 as a "hard fought campaign." Another example is that his evaluation of Iraq is that the "contagion of Liberty" has taken hold and democracy is on the march. Well, recently there have been some political success, but there are huge challenges for democracy and human rights.

What was most disappointing is that there is a lot here where liberals and conservatives can find agreement. In fact, if it were not for Iraq and abortion, this guy would be a liberal. I guess this is why I am so disappointed in this book. It would be great if liberals and conservatives could come together and find those points where we agree and work towards those goals. I had hoped this book would be one step in that direction, but it wasn't.