Edwin Meese - distinguished fellow and holder of the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy, The Heritage Foundation; distinguished visiting fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA; former U.S. attorney general

 Nearly two months ago, a very important conservative anniversary took place, the fiftieth anniversary celebration of a meeting that took place in 1947 in Switzerland. Friedrich von Hayek, the noted economist, called a meeting that was attended by Milton Friedman and thirty-seven other leading scholars from around the world.

This was the start of what has now become known as the Mont Pelerin Society. In many ways, that was a very solemn gathering in 1947. In the aftermath of the terrible cataclysms of World War I and World War II, and of Nazism and Stalinism, it was widely thought that no serious person could believe in free-market economics, in the idea that, in a beneficent social order, there could be spontaneously generated activity by the uncoordinated actions of countless ordinary men and women.

At that time, collectivism was the order of the day. Statism and compulsion, government control, seemed to be everywhere. Socialism, in one form or the other, was deemed to be the wave of the future in the West, as well as in the East. And in effect, as these people got together, they had to agree that at least for the moment, Leviathan had triumphed.

Well, this month, another significant anniversary will take place. Ten years ago next week, on the 12th of June 1987, Ronald Reagan went to the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall. Then, the wall still separated East from West, freedom from political slavery. And standing on this line that marked the division between the free and the unfree world, a world enslaved by Communism, Ronald Reagan gave one of the most important speeches of his entire career.

In his remarks, he spoke of this division between freedom and political slavery. He ended his talk with a ringing challenge which still, today, stands in our minds as the battle cry. He signaled the final philosophical battle that resulted in the end of the Cold War. Most of us remember at least some of those words, because we've heard them so many times since. He started off by saying that in the 1950s, Khruschev predicted, "We will bury you."

Then he went on to say that in the West today -- remember, this was 1987 -- "We see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, even want of the most basic kind -- too little food."

And then he concluded, saying, "There is one sign the Soviets can make that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate." And then he uttered those words that have continued to ring. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Today, ten years later after that Berlin speech, the wall is down, and its toppling became a symbol of the end of the Cold War, and the knowledge that the West had won. As a matter of fact, a piece of that wall, about three feet across and about twelve feet tall, is now enshrined in the Reagan Library in California. A few years ago, Ursula and I were privileged to have our pictures taken with both President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev in front of that wall.

The fallen wall reminds us that the West was not buried by Marxism, but rather emerged to lead the world into the new era of freedom in which, during this decade, more countries are free than at any time in the history of the world. As Ronald Reagan stated, when he talked about this during his Presidency, "The statists had their turn at bat, and struck out."

More recently, Joseph Fromm, the United States chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, talked about what's happening in Europe today. He said, "I think Western Europe is in a state of remarkable transition, attempting to adapt from heavy, excessive welfare states to more modern market economies."

Well, what took place during the fifty years from 1947 to 1997? What happened between that time of solemn faces for Hayek and Milton Friedman and the others as they contemplated a dreary future for the world, and today? That is the background for my comments tonight on the conservative movement, past, present, and future.

When Hayek and Friedman and the rest were meeting in Switzerland in 1947, conservatism in America was a small, mostly intellectual movement confined to a few academic enclaves and a few small economic think tanks. Some of you may remember Leonard Reed and his Foundation for Economic Education, and maybe a few other efforts you can recall from that era.

In the 1950s, Bill Buckley took the first major step to popularize the conservative movement. He expanded its visibility by beginning the publication of National Review. Russell Kirk's books and essays were persuasive and thoughtful contributions. Stan Evans' editorial contributions were quite a change from most of what was appearing on editorial pages around the country. Human Events was established a bit earlier, and continues today as one of the most authoritative guides to information about the conservative movement and key issues.

This movement continued as an intellectual movement into the 1960s. In 1964 conservatism became a political movement, largely through the candidacy of Barry Goldwater for the Presidency of the United States. Indeed, if you talked to many of the conservatives who served in the Reagan administration and in Congress, and in other activities during the 1970s and 1980s, you find that most of them got their start as foot soldiers in the Goldwater movement in 1964.

Indeed, it was in October of 1964 that a nationwide speech by Ronald Reagan not only raised more money for the Goldwater campaign than any other similar television appearance, but also brought him to the attention not only of the nation, but particularly of certain people in California who persuaded him ultimately to run for the governorship of that state. And even as the Great Society was being launched in Washington in the late 1960s, by the election of Ronald Reagan as governor of California in 1966, and his taking office in 1967, along with other governors, like Paul Laxalt and several more, conservatism began to be a governing movement, at least as far as the states are concerned.

For the next decade, there was considerable combat between conservative governors around the country and those who wielded power in Washington, D.C. I remember our talking about it in Sacramento, when we said that fighting the feds was our favorite pastime. It was a decade later when we found out we were the feds, and I'll now talk about that.

In 1981, conservatism became a governing force on the national scene, of course, with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. And in 1995 -- again, about fifteen years later -- Republicans, who had become increasingly more conservative in their congressional ranks during that period, certainly in the number of conservatives that could be counted on, took control of both houses of the Congress for the first time in several decades.

That should be a happy ending to our chronicle of conservative history. Indeed, as Francis Fukuyama -- author of the book The End of History -- said in a recent essay he wrote for Commentary Magazine, "I am constantly struck by the extent to which the cultural tone of the country has shifted in a conservative direction from a generation ago when I was in college."

And he goes on to say, "Markets and private competition have never in my memory had the kind of persuasive legitimacy they do today, while concerns over moral decline and traditional social issues have risen substantially." He goes on to say, "The agenda of the Left has crumbled. Whereas a generation ago it was intent on completing the welfare state along European lines, today it is fighting a rearguard action to preserve what elements it can of the post-war social safety net."

If conservatives are so lucky, why aren't we happier?

Just last night, Jack Wheeler, in his excellent speech, explained to us how the oligarchs of Washington, D.C. have been boiling our freedoms to death, and how we have become enmeshed in a web of government control. Manufactured crises, as he explained, have resulted in the vast expansion of governmental power, and we are in an era of what he called -- and I think most of us would agree -- democratic fascism.

 How do we explain the apparent contradiction between these two views of our situation today? The triumph of conservatism and freedom and free markets over Marxism and totalitarianism and the fact that in these free countries we still have the Leviathan of government controls. It's a little bit like that famous line that starts Dickens' Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times."

Ed Feulner, who is the president, now, of the Mont Pelerin Society, spoke to this dichotomy in the speech he delivered there. He said: "Going from a Western welfare state to a truly free, deregulated society is a transformation almost as great and far-reaching as the transition from communism to capitalism." Consequently, the gulf between winning the battle of ideas, and translating those ideas into laws that genuinely diminish Leviathan's power is a very wide one, much wider, perhaps, than we have realized.

And Ed went on to say: "Only when ideas are accepted and also become laws, does the world change. In other words, it's possible to win the war of ideas but nonetheless to fail to change the world. 

Ideas are decisive, but not self-implementing. Translating even popular ideas into policies and laws capable of reversing fifty years of statist hegemony is not an automatic, straightforward process. In fact, it is made more difficult by the democratic forces that freedom-loving peoples fight to preserve."

In other words, we have to do it by the democratic process, not by some governmental fiat. 

How, then, do we translate our ideas into laws that not only block the road to serfdom but also clear a path to freedom?" asked Feulner. He said, "Today, this has become a key question. Living in a society where everyone naturally looks to government to solve every problem, how do we return power to the individual? Having been accustomed by the welfare state of their government for security and entitlements, how do we encourage a sense of greater personal responsibility in our fellow citizens? How do we change the current calculus of consent?"

Well, last night, Jack Wheeler, in his stirring speech, defined that threat of democratic fascism which is the result of what Ed Feulner called the calculus of consent. And Wheeler outlined several goals: rolling back government to its original constitutional limitations by requiring Congress to legislate within its own specific constitutional authority, as John Shadegg has proposed. Challenging the use of treaties to expand governmental power. Encouraging local governments to resist the encroachment of federal agencies. Supporting Congressman Bob Barr's efforts to initiate an impeachment inquiry into the depredations and abuse of office by Bill Clinton and his administration. And all of these are good ideas.

Of course, I think sometimes, maybe we're a little hard on Bill Clinton. You know, after all, he's done a lot for the American

Presidency. He's made Jimmy Carter look competent.

He has made Lyndon Johnson look honest.

He has made John F. Kennedy look virtuous.

And he has even made Franklin Roosevelt look conservative.

You know, Bill Clinton has thought a lot about Abraham Lincoln, and not just the bedroom. He claims to have taken Abraham Lincoln's advice. You know, Lincoln once said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time," and, Clinton said, that's good enough for him.

Well, Jack Wheeler's ideas last night, I think, are a very excellent start. And so tonight, I'd like to suggest just a few principles, and some modest strategies, to achieve the goals that he set forth, and also to go beyond, as we seek to translate ideas into action, and action into institutional change. Because I think that's the direction of the conservative movement in the United States, and indeed, in the world, as far as the future is concerned.

We have a major advantage on our side: mainstream public opinion is fundamentally more conservative than it is liberal. Our ideas constitute the direction that is most favored by the American people. As you look at each public-opinion poll, this comes out again and again and again.

Our challenge, though, is to communicate with the American people and educate the American people in a way that will motivate them to support the policies and the politics that will implement the ideas that we espouse. And I think we have to recognize that we're up against formidable opponents.

Bill Clinton himself, without question, is the slickest politician that has ever come along. I debate Bob Beckel -- you've probably seen him on Crossfire -- every once in awhile before business audiences. Bob Beckel got up in one of our debates before the election and said, "Bill Clinton is, without a doubt, one of the cleverest, most slick political figures, political speakers we've ever had."

And I got up after him and said, "Yes, I agree with Bob entirely. He certainly is. And he has one advantage that no Republican will ever enjoy. He's totally uninhibited by either the truth or consistency."

And so we have to recognize that he=s one formidable opponent. The liberal establishment continues to be a formidable opponent. The combination of the media, the liberal establishment and Bill Clinton, aided and abetted by a reinvigorated union movement, led, unfortunately, not by men of principle but by labor thugs, will stoop to almost anything in order to try to win elections that they don't deserve.

But I think we have to recognize that we also have a strong arsenal of legitimate weapons on our side. As a conservative movement, we have greater resources than we've ever had in history. I always compare where we were in 1997, when Bill Clinton started his second term, with where we were in 1977, when Jimmy Carter started his first term.

Just look at the publications we have now. It's not just National Review and Human Events, but so many publications. I suspect your mail boxes are plenty full. There's ample reading for any conservative to occupy our time and far beyond.

The research institutions we have, the think tanks, so-called, have blossomed during the course of the past quarter century. The legal foundations, the public interest law firms around the country, now numbering almost two dozen, are carrying on true public interest law on behalf of the citizens, the taxpayers and the law-abiding people of the country.

The academic organizations. What was once a wasteland as far as conservatism was concerned, populated and dominated by liberal and left wing professors, is now abounding with conservative organizations on virtually every campus, including the Ivy League, and other places where you would least suspect it. Groups working there, like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Federalist Society in our law schools, and other organizations.

Groups working with youth generally, like the Leadership Institute, Young Americas Foundation, the many others, are having their effect on college campuses. When I had speaking engagements -- which, I might add, were paid -- in the same week at both Cornell and Princeton, I knew there had been a change since the days of the 1960s.

Advocacy groups abound, on a variety of issues, and some on a general, across-the-board conservative basis.

The columnists. The best ideas from columnists are coming from conservatives. And even the liberal newspapers are having to admit them to their op-ed sheets.

The radio talk shows -- and we could go on and on, to list the resources that we have on our side. We are strong, but the question is, can we use that strength wisely?

First, we must utilize technology to the full, as a means of getting our message across.

Conservatives, and then the Republican Party as the party best emulating the direction of conservatives, have done things which won elections by new innovations. At one time, it was precinct work, identification of voters in getting out the vote, and the use of absentee ballots. Still very important, but the Democrats have found that out, too.

And then it was direct mail, which has been a powerful and important effort. It still continues. And it's important, too. But, like other things, the other side has learned that, as well.

And now, it may even be that we may be a step or two behind the Left in the use of the internet. Certainly we have to adapt that technology to our needs, requirements and uses, as we have pioneered the use of new devices and new means in past years.

A second thing that's very important is that we must continuously support, counsel, and inspire the elected public leaders, the people we have in Congress, in the state houses, in the governors' mansions, and in the other positions of elected office throughout our country. It's not just at the national and the state level, it's at the local level, as well. Because the people who are deciding school board policy, or city council matters, need our help and support as well.

We have to make sure that we're making our views known. I was talking with a good friend here who has taken it upon himself to periodically counsel a senator from his state who has an occasional tendency to go astray. He lets him know that he's being watched, and that there are those at home who expect him to carry out the kinds of things that he says at election time. I think all of us, both individually and through our organizations, have to keep that in mind.

And we must make the point to our elected officials, particularly members of Congress, who, to a certain extent, have disappointed some of us, that our way is not only the right way, but it's also the best politics. If you look at the polls, you see the American people are going in the direction that we are.

There was a recent article, again in Commentary, by a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, in which he said that the electorate continues to tilt towards conservatism. His survey of the November 1996 exit polls shows that, 33 percent of the voters described themselves as conservatives, as opposed to only 20 percent who described themselves as liberals. A tremendous advantage in electoral terms.

That survey included other questions asked of the voters as they exited from their polling places, such as, "Should the government do more to solve problems?" Or, "Is the government doing too many things better left to business and private individuals?" In that poll, a majority -- 52 percent to 41 percent -- said that government is doing too much.

We have to encourage our elected representatives to have confidence in their own convictions.

We have to recognize the forceful, but at the same time civil, ways in which we can change their minds, or direct their minds, or encourage their minds. There's a tendency in all of us to get angry, to have the feeling that we've been betrayed by those we've elected to office. And there is going to come a time, with some of them, that we're going to have to take retaliatory measures, like running someone against them in a primary campaign, or at least threatening to do so.

But if we're going to threaten that, we'd better be prepared to go through with it. Until we get to the point of no return with a particular individual, or the point where all else has failed, I think we have to remember that very few sales are made by getting angry at the person you're trying to persuade.

Another thing that I think we have to do -- and this is kind of the other side of the coin of forcefully dealing with our elected officials -- is to reward our own heroes.

Why does only the Left have so many blandishments for newly-arrived figures in Washington, D.C., whether they're in Congress, in the administration, or on the Supreme Court? Every time they do something the other side wants, they get tremendous praise in the nation's newspapers, on television and from the leading members of the so-called establishment.

We must do the same to reward, to recognize and to thank those who are going the way we would like them to go. We must not forget them just because they're doing the things we expect them to do.

And while we're rewarding those who are doing the right thing, I think it's important that we also take care of our wounded. When a Steve Stockman, or someone else who has been true to our cause, is defeated in an election, we need to get behind that person, help him, perhaps with a job, perhaps with political recognition or something else effective.

After all, who do you think is populating all the embassies of the Clinton administration? Defeated Democratic congressmen. We have to remember that we have to take care of those who have served well, but have not succeeded in their elections as well as the other side.

Another thing we have to do is communicate our message in ways that resonate with the American people. It's important that we not be caught up in the jargon of Washington, or even the jargon of the conservative media that we often read and the conservative rhetoric of our organizations. We have to do things the people understand.

I thought of this particularly in 1995 and 1996, when the Republicans in Washington, were talking about deficit reduction budget cuts, and all the arcane language of officialdom. Meanwhile the Democrats were talking about helping children, feeding starving people and taking care of the needy. We must remember that our message is the right one, but it must be communicated in the right way.

We need positive phrasing. We need to talk in terms of people and their interests. In the long run, a job is better than any welfare program that has ever been produced, but we've got to make that plain to the American people. The way for children to grow up alive and educated is the conservative way, the crime-free way, and we've got to make that clear to the American people.

We have to remember, as we do so, that the facts are on our side. Big government has proved that it doesn't work. If money would solve the problem of poverty, the $5.3 trillion that we've spent since the advent of the Great Society would have wiped out poverty in this country. Instead, it has enriched only middle-class bureaucrats around the country.

 The laws of nature support our stand on the social issues. We've got to get that across to the public that's waiting out there for the reinforcement of what they really know is right. They already hear all the stuff from the other side, whether it's from the Disney corporation or the other parts of the antisocial establishment. We want to reinforce what people know is right. The facts are on our side. We've got to get them across.

And finally -- and I think this is perhaps one of the most important elements of the conservative movement now that we are becoming successful -- unity and cooperation in our own joint endeavors is vitally important to ultimate success. We're a big movement now. For a long time we weren't. We=re big enough to have differences of opinion and disagreement, not on goals or on principles, but on means to an end, and how we develop the strategies and the tactics to achieve our objectives.

We are going to disagree on these. We're going to disagree on strategic methods of accomplishing our mission. But in the long run, goals are the same. We have to remember who are our real friends, and who are our real opponents. It's important that we treat our friends with respect, even when we disagree.

So let me sum up where we are today. The state of conservatism today is strong. Certainly, we're in the strongest position we've been in decades. We have many problems. We have many challenges, and Leviathan is still an opposing foe. But the resources, the objective facts and the opportunities for progress are still on our side.

I am convinced, with what we have, faith in God, love of our country and commitment to each other, we can extend the conservative movement even further. The best of times for all of us and for the conservative movement still lies ahead. Thank you. 

MR. MORTON BLACKWELL: The Council for National Policy is composed of the leaders and the activists who built the conservative movement. We all know many remarkable people. There are many remarkable people among us here tonight.

But I propose a thought to you this evening. It is rare indeed that any of us meet a man whom we know is suitable to have been seated among the Founding Fathers who built our system of government, of limited government and ordered liberty in this country.

Ed Meese is brilliant, effective, principled, practical, hardworking, decent and caring to the core, and, most rare of all, wise. I served in the Reagan administration for the first three years, and I can testify personally that most of the best achievements of the Reagan administration are directly attributable to the influence and hard work of Ed Meese.

And so, when the time came to think about what sort of a gift we might give as a token of our appreciation for his four years as president of our organization, it was a problem to think what we could do.

Those of you who have been in Ed Meese's office know that it is -- crowded. Crowded with plaques and trophies and testimonials given him by an enormous variety of people and organizations. Frankly, we didn't want to increase the number of those, because there are so many of them. We thought about what would be appropriate as a gift, and came up with an idea which we were able to achieve.

And it has to do with this feeling that many of us share. I think everyone here will agree that Ed Meese may be unique among our acquaintances as somebody who would be appropriate to have been there with the Founding Fathers who created our country.

We have been able to obtain an official U.S. government document that is signed by President James Madison, the father of our Constitution, and also signed by his Secretary of State, James Monroe. It is this token that we wish to give to you, Ed, as a symbol of our appreciation for the great services you have done for this organization and the country. 

MR. EDWIN MEESE: Well, Morton, thank you very much. Needless to say, I will treasure this. If it was Ronald Reagan here, he would say, "Yes. I can remember when he signed that."