Brit Hume referred to Jack Kemp as the “original compassionate conservative” and, as much as I have always resented that term as unnecessarily redundant and wish that George W. Bush had never coined it, upon reflection,  it is probably an appropriate characterization.  For Kemp, more than anyone else in public life, championed conservative economic policies for exactly the right reasons–because they are reflective of the policy underpinnings that sustain a moral economic order and they inure most significantly to the direct benefit of those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

If there ever was a time for reflection on the central ideas of a public figure, Kemp’s passing this past week is one of those, and I am pleased that several publications have devoted space to his work, thoughts, and ideas.  For those who have forgotten, he is largely responsible for the introduction of supply-side economics into public policy at the highest level, an introduction that provided Ronald Reagan with the impetus for arguably the most successful domestic policy transformation of modern times, namely the 25% income tax rate cuts of 1983.  These cuts, along with sound money Federal Reserve policy and regulatory relief, freed the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans that produced the longest peacetime economic expansion in U. S. history, providing upward mobility for millions here and around the world.

I have long thought that it was a mistake that Kemp was not on the ticket with Reagan in 1980, and I certainly believe that he should have been there with Bush 41 in 1988.  What a difference that could have made in convincing the elder Bush not to forsake the winning supply-side formula, a decision that surely helped defeat him in 1992.

An even bigger shame is that the Republican leadership has completely abdicated the policies that produced the prosperity and political success of the Reagan Revolution.  Bush 43 certainly had enormous success with it, but scarcely a sound could be heard during the 2008 campaign in defense of supply-side, tax cut economics properly understood and, since then, the loyal opposition seems to have completely lost any courage to boldly defend the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.  In one of his last op-ed pieces just weeks before election day last year, Kemp strongly urged John McCain to refocus his economic message on tax policy, particularly a flat tax proposal.  Alas, it was too late, and McCain had shown little interest in, understanding of, or ability to articulate supply-side policy as an engine of economic growth and a moral underpinning of a just economic order.  We await the successor to Jack Kemp to do so.  RIP.

Well, very soon we won’t have Justice David Souter to kick around anymore.  Arguably George H. W. Bush’s worst decision as President (my choice), even topping the violation of his “no new taxes” pledge, Souter has haunted us for nineteen years with the nightmare of what might have been had Bush not listened to Warren Rudman and John Sununu on his appointment.

So what is to be expected from Obama with the appointment of a replacement when Souter steps down at the end of this court term?  It is difficult to imagine anyone more reliably to the left on almost any critical decision, but things could be worse, and Obama offers some hints as to how they might be so.  These hints are embodied in a number of quotes to keep in mind, two of the more prominent of which are:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom.  The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.  And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” — July 2007 at a Planned Parenthood conference.

“The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society…………and didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” — September 2001 radio interview.

And just this week, upon learning of Souter’s retirement, Obama had this to say: “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.  It’s also about how our laws affect the realities of people’s lives.”

“Empathy” for certain groups as a criterion for appointment of Supreme Court Justices?  What does empathy have to do with the rule of law and fidelity to the Constitution, particularly the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?  Redistribution of wealth?  Breaking free from the restraints of the Founders?  Sounds to me pretty close to a violation of his oath of office.  And remember that Senator Obama voted NO on the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts, citing concerns over his political philosophy.  All of this plus the reversal by Obama of George W. Bush’s decision to exclude the American Bar Association from the vetting process for possible nominees.  So you tell me if it can get worse than Souter.

In America, the “realities of people’s lives” to which President Obama refers involve more than anything else the freedom and opportunity guaranteed them by the protection of the organizing principle embodied in what is arguably the most revolutionary and successful document in world history.  Let’s hope his nominee remembers that above all else.

A couple of entries from the Wall Street Journal’s “Notable and Quotable” section just days apart recently caught my attention.   One is from Doris Kearns Goodwin on Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society from her book, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, the other is from a 1939 article in the New York Herald Tribune by Walter Lippman on conflict in the Roosevelt administration during the New Deal deliberations.

First, Goodwin: “In his determination to get Congress and America moving again, Johnson demanded support for the Great Society and confidence in the capacity of government to improve all the conditions of society as matters of faith……………And so it went in message after message.  The subjects might change, but the essentials remained the same: in the opening, an expression of dire need; in the middle, a vague proposal; in the end, a buoyant description of the anticipated results–all contained in an analysis presented in a manner that often failed to distinguish between expectations and established realities…………….Pass the bill now, worry about its effects and implementation later–this was the White House strategy.”

Now Lippman: “………….there are two main tendencies inside the New Deal, and the President is never quite able to make his choice for one or the other–social reform or control of the economic system…………….This is the issue between the reformers and the radicals.  Both believe in spending, but the reformers regard the spending as an instrument of recovery and a means for improving the condition of the people.  The radicals regard the spending as a substitute for recovery and as a means of altering the balance of social policy.”

I suspect (frankly, I hope) that there may be some elements of these kinds of debates underway in the Obama White House, but let’s make no mistake about the nature of the incumbent–his ambitions for transforming the relationship between Americans and their government likely dwarf those of either of his two predecessors referenced in the quotes above, and he has already clearly announced the basis on which he will proceed: the concept of “fairness”, largely achieved by a leveling of outcomes in all walks of life.  The first big test will be nationalized health care, so get ready.

Quite a lot of my recent reading time has been devoted to the history of the Medieval period, or the Middle Ages, particularly in terms of the impact of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions and their respective influence on the development of Western civilization.  Much of what I read and learned involved correcting many misconceptions about this period and the stereotypes that had worked their way into my thinking.  The following three books were very helpful and I recommend them to those who want a better understanding of the period from the end of the Roman Empire to the late Renaissance in the early 17th century.

The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, by Rodney Stark poses an aggressive and, in some circles, probably controversial viewpoint that Christianity and its related institutions are directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic innovations of the past millennium and that, contrary to the anti-religious assumptions of the modern academy, Christian theology is the very font of reason.  He surveys all the major historical traditions and their influence, makes interesting comparisons and contrasts, and his arguments hang together very well.

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods, has many parallels to the Stark book, but makes a number of key points in defense of Catholicism, often in opposition to what Woods describes as Protestant propaganda that has grown over the centuries.  He defends Catholic cultural leadership in the areas of science, art, architecture, international law, economics, charitable works, and Western law, and does a particularly good job of explaining the “Galileo affair” and the misconceptions that have surrounded it.

The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization, by Jonathon Lyons.  I almost didn’t stay with this book past the first couple of chapters, being put off by Lyons’ introduction, which included a brief history of the Crusades that is heavily biased against the motivations and atrocities of the armies of the West.  But I am glad that I persevered, because, in spite of the obvious advocacy for his point of view throughout, Lyons paints a plausible picture of the dramatic influence of Arab and Muslim culture on the evolution and development of the West.  And this influence was considerable, a point which is not contradicted by other sources I have encountered, including the two books referenced above.  Of the three books, this one was the most provocative for me, because it obviously required me to think “outside the box”. 

The best read of the year so far, however, has been Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism, by George Weigel.  It is simply the most compelling explanation that I have encountered of the evil we face and its sources.  Weigel draws on 25 years of experience in moral argument and its intersection with public policy to paint clearly the threat posed by global jihadism.  He explores the ideology’s theological, social, cultural, and political roots and offers a new direction for public policy and interreligious dialogue.  One point is driven home relentlessly: that our first step in understanding this enemy and achieving moral clarity is to overcome the powerful prejudice, grounded in progressive hope and naivete, that religious belief is disappearing as a factor in world politics.