do that. when you are in the shape that we are in right now, i have another conviction. you have to be prepared to take risk. i used to play a lot of pinball. before it was digital. when you are losing, when the last ball is rolling right down the middle towards the whole, there is only one thing you can do. you got to hit the table. it might go tilt, but you have to take that chance. . .

>> you have to have the audacity to talk about that, and so many other illustrations that i could give you. finally, i think we must -- the recovery of credibility and eventually the trust to lead will require in the near-term that we accept with grace the role of the loyal opposition, which i believe is to root sincerely for the nation's success and to express agreement where it exists, so that your disagreements are more credible, and of course to leave partisanship at the proverbial shoreline. his, of course, means that we will have to conduct ourselves and opposition much more gracefully and much better than our opponents did, but we should be up to that. our opponents, like my

reactionary opponent colleagues in indiana will help us here if we will let them. if you haven't noticed, although the stereotype has not yet changed, the meanest people in american politics are on the left, bar none. no conservative i know can hold a candle for sure, outright mean is, sometimes several jury -- saturday. that comes from believing that power is everything in that winning is the only thing that matters, which we do not believe. i guess this is my last point, and i hope you will not find it a banality, but i think we must be a friendly political movement. when some of us would get hot headed, ronald reagan used to say, boys, remember, we have no enemies, only opponents. we are all americans, after all. we must have deeply at heart the

best interests of those fellow americans, including those who have not made up their mind, who do not understand each of arthur's questions, and even those who disagree with us most strongly. the reason i do not think this is too trivial is that i think it is faithful to the principles that drew many of us to this set of beliefs. to me, as a young person not knowing really what i thought, i believe i was drawn to a set of beliefs shared in this room by the single most attractive virtue of conservatism, which is its humility. if we do not believe that we have all the answers. we do not believe we are so smart answer. that we should order the lives and all the affairs of our fellow citizens as our opponents do. it is very easy to practice

humility right now, in the shape we are in. we will have to practice and other virtue, which is patients. we will have to spend some times in the penalty box. our fellow citizens are going to say eventually, all right, did you learn anything? did you hear us? do you have any new good ideas for us? and if we do, and we will, i have every confidence that freedom and those who espouse it cannot be kept down for long. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, governor.

>> governor daniels' ends with humility, and that is certainly where i start, being on this panel. it is humbling to be part of this conversation and this extraordinary group. i am grateful also to the bradley foundation and to the hudson institute's and those who organized this, and grateful for the part they are taking in trying to organize a rejuvenation that is badly needed for all the reasons we have taken up. i want to agree with a lot of what has been said, almost everything that has been said, except maybe that governor daniels should not run for higher office. i simply do not agree with that. [applause] i do want to begin by quibbling a bit with the subject as it has been posed.

i think credibility is not exactly the issue. i think conservatism is very credible as a political disposition, as an organizing princie for movement, and as a general guide for a political party, i think conservatism is credible. i think that the public is open to hearing from conservatives. the question for us is, what we have to say to them? that is a difficult question in this particular moment. how do our principles apply to this very complicated, very difficult moment that we find ourselves in? what is it that we have to say? on that front, i want to start by making a bit of a case for no as a starting point. no it's a bad rap. it is a wonderful word. we should not be simply the party of no, of course.

we need to be able to offer an alternative. we need to have a sense of what it is we want, why it is we are involved in politics and what we think is good for america. but we also need to have a sense of what it means to be on the opposition. conservatives are out of power in washington in a way that we have not been and a long time, in 15 years or so. out of power in the white house, both houses of congress, and being so completely in the opposition means that a lot of the time, the particular political and policy judgments you face present themselves as yes or no questions. you do not get to have as much a role in shaping policy. you get to vote on it and argue about it. a lot of that presents itself as yes or no, will you accept as a general matter of the approach of the party in power and try to work with in it, or do your priorities and your ideas and beliefs about what is good for america mean that you have to respectfully disagree, and

explain why and explain where you stand? the answer is often mixed, of course. it is certainly mixed in our situation as well. it is very important that it always be evident to the public that we are not simply here to oppose, but to explain what we would do and why and how. there's no question that taken as a whole, what is emerging as the general agenda of the obama administration presented to us as a series of yes or no questions is going to require us to say no, in many cases. we should say no and then add to that by explaining our objections, offering alternatives, and reasoning with the public in a serious and responsible way. we should have the courage of our convictions to do that. it is important for an opposition party to know where its principles. , and when it is necessary, to say no. i think our challenges is to say no in a serious way, and are greater challenge is to develop ideas and alternatives to clarify to the public why we think we should say no, and what

it would mean for the public to give us a try instead. the party of ideas and the party of no are very much the same party when you are in the opposition. that becomes clear when you look at specific issues. i want to look at two areas where conservatives need to focus and where the public is most likely to agree. one is health care. it will be the crucial debate of the next few months. it helps us to see how this distinction between the so- called party of no and the party of ideas is often less than it seems in practice. in health care, conservatives have a better idea. we argue that the answer to rising costs, the essence of the problem, is not a government price controls and rationing but a working individual market in health insurance. yet a fairly good idea of how that works and what that kind of reform would look like in practice. paul ryan introduced a bill recently that is a good version

of how that might go. the question of whether we will ever be able to implement our kind of reform, the next time we have a chance at power, depends on whether we can stop a very bad idea from being implemented in the meantime, from establishing facts on the ground that will prove to be irreversible. that is a case where the party of no and the party of better ideas is the same party, it shows the importance of saying no and the importance of having better ideas, and knowing how to explain to the public. our problem in the past year on health care has not been a lack of ideas, but it certainly has been a lack of ability to explain to the public, a problem are leaders and all of us have had, and a problem that is one of our great challenges in the next few months and years beyond. the other area i think we need to focus on is closely related, but is broader and larger. is where it seems to me that the democrats are most severely overreaching now, and where an

informed and intelligent and courteous, firm opposition is most needed. it is an area that conservatives have been comfortable arguing about, the size, scope, and reach of government and the importance of democratic capitalism in america. this is a moment for a serious fiscal conservatism. a lot of what the obama administration has begun to do has been troubling to us, but not altogether surprising. you can think of various issues where some things have been done that i find troubling, but not surprising. it is what the public might have expected when electing obama in november. you can say the same on judges and somewhat the same on foreign policy. some things have gone better than might have expected, and we should not be shy about saying so and encouraging a streak of moderation here and there when it presents itself. when it comes to economic policy, what we have seen is not

what the public might have expected on election day. if you had set in november that by june we will have spent one trillion dollars or so on a stimulus package and another one trillion dollars on the banks, have a deficit for the year and a budget that calls for an explosion of debt with no end in sight, and talking about 8 $2 trillion health care plan, and the government owns gm and chrysler, i think people would have thought that was crazy. it is clear that there is more of that to come. we are seeing an approach to economic policy that increasingly seems as though it wants to eliminate risk in the economy, to gain control over markets in ways that threaten to stifle the energy and intensity of the american economy, and to vary significantly reshape the relationship between the citizen and the government in our country. this is our foremost challenge right now and will remain so for a while. a great deal of the inner --

intellectual conservatism needs to turn. i do not mean just for a focus on the size of government. this is a moment for making the case for american capitalism, for understanding and explaining in a series way what has happened in the past 18 months and why, for making a case for democratic capitalism we have not had to make in 25 or 30 years, a case for economic freedom, for consumer choice, for competition, innovation, and economically, for capitalism. a philosophical and moral case. it is a case we think we know, but one we have not made to the american public and a longtime. we have not had to make it to ourselves in a very long time. this sort of case is the essence of an effective opposition to what the democrats are now bringing about to our economic and political life. that case needs to organize the opposition. it is essential that we speak to

the american people. it is true, and it needs to be said. the challenge of mounting the sort of opposition is an intellectual challenge. i think the challenge facing conservatism is an intellectual challenge, even more than it is a political challenge. it is less about winning this micro constituency in a particular region of the country. it is more about what conservatism has to say to the norms governing challenges that we face today in america. that means thinking concretely about policy, broadly about american ideals, and understanding the moment we are in. these of the challenges we have to focus on. these of the challenges we are getting to be focused on. it is what a lot of the intellectual energy of conservatives is moving toward now. it is what the project i am involved in will be focused on, a new quarterly journal of political and policy ideas. it is what a lot of our people are doing.

it is what governor -- governor daniels and congressman ryan are doing, connecting our ideas to our challenges. that is the way to make a credible conservatism more practical and more effective. it is to understand where charged with governing ourselves in a time of challenges and to show the country where conservatives take that to mean as an opposition an alternative. thank you. [applause] >> rich lowry. >> good morning, everyone. it is a pleasure for me to have been invited here today, and i assure you, i am sincere in that sentiment, because as a conservative guy who lives and works in a very liberal new york city, is a pleasure for me to be

invited anywhere. it does not happen very often. just to give you an idea of the strange existence we have in new york city, for the longest time, our offices were literally located above the headquarters of a rap recording studio. it was called loud it records. the most interesting part of the juxtaposition is that when we open up our windows in the spring and summer, this unmistakable odor would waft up. i regret to report to so many upstanding people that a lot of days ago national review" has been produced in a haze of marijuana smoke. [laughter] some people think that explains a lot. my favorite story is from my friend bill kristol from "the weekly standard." he tells a story where he

brought -- taught briefly at harvard. he moved to cambridge in the fall. there's a congressional election. he went and voted in that election and voted against the democrat in that race. the next morning, he was curious how it turned out, so he asked his wife at the breakfast table how the election went and how did the republican do in that race? she looked at the newspaper and look at him quizzically and said, bill, there was not a republican in that race. >> he said look, i know i voted against the democrat. she said, honey, you voted for the communists. which is the way it goes in urban america. it is an honor to be here today with so many thinkers and leaders. a little-known fact, those are the columns left over from barack obama oppose it acceptance speech in denver this summer. [laughter]

i agree with everything that has been said this morning, but i want to start with a defensive point. can now be a little defensive? it was prompted by of paul ryan's remarks. what we are really witnessing is a war on american exception lissome and the american character as it has existed throughout our history. if you want to think about who we are, we have always been a commercial nation characterized by an open and dynamic economy, across the sweep of western history the last several centuries, there has always been one superpower, if you will, that is characterized by having a large navy, a sophisticated financial system, and it's over leaning concern is increasing its national wealth through commerce. first it was the dutch, then the british took over from the dutch, and then we took over from the british.

that is who we are. we have also always been a world power with crusading tendencies come right from the very beginning. the founders talked of our new country as an empire. george washington used over and over again the phrase "and empire of liberty." george washington spoke of settling the ohio river valley, but his vision swept further westward and across the continent. they always knew that if we were a success as a nation, we have a huge role to play in world affairs. we have always been fundamentally a middle-class nation, about individual aspiration, from the very beginning. arguably, by some measures, even before the revolution, on a per- capita basis, where the wealthiest country on earth. if you want to look at someone who epitomizes this characteristic of america, the

to the founder of the republican party, abraham lincoln. something that he just hated in the marrow of his bones was economic stasis. he hated the jeffersonian vision, the jeffersonian ideal of a country that was always, forever more, going to be yeoman arms, leaving virtuously on their lands. he was estranged from his father because his father could never move beyond that vision. he was a lawyer for the railroads, because the railroads for him represent progress and economic advance. there is nothing he would have hated more than the idea of the federal government prompting -- propping up a dying or dead industry in the form of gm and chrysler and detroit as exist today. finally, we have always been a small "d"democracy.

before the revolution, we had the freest institutions on earth. governor daniels forbearers to founded this nation talked about representing the dissidents of dissent and protest wing of the protestant religion. we have always defined american citizenship -- always thought it got its fundamental meaning from personal responsibility and from self-reliance and self government. if you just look at these four things that represent a thumbnail sketch of american exceptional listen, every single one of them is under threat today. this is the fundamental radicalism of the obama vision, little clique -- literally the radicalism, because of attacks are roadour roots of what we ara nation. i just want to make three

practical points about our political situation today, which is not a very pleasurable to consider. the last two elections were reason to recall the immortal words of mo udall, the democratic center ran for the democratic presidential nomination in the late 1970's. it did not turn out well in the new hampshire primary. he went out and face the cameras and said the voters have spoken, the bastards. [applause] 3 practical points, to cautionary and one optimistic. already has not come up yet today -- ronald reagan is often at the forefront of the discussion about what the conservative future should be. it is very important for us to remember two things about reagan. one, despite all his incredible political skills, he would not

have one the election if it were not for inflation, if it were not for gas lines, if it were not for the iranian hostage crisis, if it were not for afghanistan, if it were not for the entire linney of carter's administration failures -- entire litany of carter administration failures. when you are as far down as republicans were in the 1970's and as far down as they are today, you need the other side to fumble, and for its vision to be discredited. at the moment, barack obama has the ball, and he will have the ball until he commits some sort of turnover. there will have to be some patients here, as governor daniels' pointed out. although reagan was an ideologue in the best sense of the word, he had a few key ideas that undergird it his view of the world. we should not forget he was an

intensely practical man as well. he was concerned with practical successes in the political arena and was willing to compromise to get those successes. so yes, we need principles, and we need to return to principles, but principles without prudence is folly. on the other hand, flexibility without a philosophical groundings becomes mere opportunism. what we need to try to hit is that sweet spot of statesmanship, which reagan did and which we need to try to do. it is much easier said than done, which is why i prefer being a political pundit and leaving the statesmanship to the likes of governor daniels. just on spending, there is a lot of talk on the right about how important it is to resist thinning and cut spending -- resist spending.

there is a lot of truth to that, but it needs to be unpacked a little bit. pork barrel spending heard republican congress, not because constituents back home were outraged at getting these local projects. it was because that spending came to symbolize the self interested nature at the end of the republican majority, and because it was caught up in a very real culture of corruption. spending in general, unfortunately, is not necessarily always unpopular. arguably, the most popular domestic initiative passed by the bush administration and republican congress was an awful, unfunded new entitlement program in the form of the prescription drug bill. so yes, we need to limit government, but we have to realize, limiting government, cutting spending in the abstract is not necessarily popular. we have to connect that agenda

to real concerns and real people's lives. this is where i endorse every single word that governor daniels said, although i find the idea of traveling 100,000 miles in and are be horrifying. regina -- traveling in an rv to be horrifying. if you gave me another dozen mitch daniels, i could move the world. this is a wonderful cover story by my colleague, mark hemingway. i am an optimist, because as conservatives, we have to believe reality is on our side at the end of the day. we believe three things, if you want to boil them down. that the market is the best way to allocate capital, that the world as a dangerous place that

requires a tough mindedness in confronting it, and you cannot have a healthy society without traditional social structures and without virtue. we do not believe these things because they are convenient or because they are popular. there are not always popular or convenient. we believe them because they are true, and because they are true, they will be vindicated eventually. in the meantime, i am an optimist because i believe with bismarck that god loves -- looks after drunkards, fools, and the united states of america, and he better. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you to all of our panelists. now we have time to turn it over

to you. i know you have a lot on your minds. we would like to hear from you, interacting with our panelists. we will start with anyone who wants to kick it off with the first question or topic for discussion. i almost abdicated my responsibilities at -- as moderator. please wait for the microphone, say to you are, and stand up, if you would. >> i have worked for everybody. i am depressed. say something about politics that will cheer me up. [laughter] >> joe biden. [laughter]

>> not that. >> the first way to assure ourselves up is to say that nothing lasts forever, that we need to think in the long term. if we do believe that we are right and that the policies that are being pursued by the administration and congress now are going to be disastrous, we should hope and believe first of all that that is a case we could make to the public, and second, that is a case that becomes evident over time. that is how political power changes hands. it is certainly a depressing moment, that is for sure. as conservatives, we very often thrive on depression, and this is a time for that if ever there has been one. >> i thought one of the most illuminating books i can remember reading was "well and decline of nations." the point was made that societies that have grown the most rapidly