together, i will go anywhere for the good people of hudson or the bradley foundation, i think we are here because we are all stunned and concerned by what i have come to think of as the shock and awe state-ism we have experienced. i think that image comes to mind because of the audacious endeavor to overwhelm the defenses of freedom and free institutions before they have a chance to regroup and organize themselves. we worry that there will be a ratchet in human affairs, those things that are put in place that add to the power of state and diminish the sphere of the individual that we fear will be irreversible. . am neither fatalistic or pessimistic about the prospects.

i am a presbyterian. we are supposed to be fatalistic, theologically maybe. my preacher used to say that a presbyterian is someone that falls down a flight of stairs and says, "well, i am glad i got and says, "well, i am glad i got that over with." i don't come at this subject pessimistically either. when i step back, even from the shock of current events and ask myself again, and arthur's data pointed in this direction, are americans predisposed to forfeit hard earned liberties that have proven themselves over and over again? i do not see it. i can make the opposite case.

the best educated people ever on the planet possess the technology that empowers individuals in a way that we have never seen before. bigness in all of its forms. observing a federal government that is every bit as clumsy as it ever was and dysfunctional. just wait until what it tries what is about to try. i think such people are less likely and not more likely than ever before to be herded by tghe ehe other leaders in mass transit, smaller cars, or homogenized health care. i think we are going to try to squeeze americans into these boxes are the ones who are pushing water uphill.

but still, the topic for which we are assembled is a huge job. let me try to -- i can't sum it up for you better than what paul did. pillars on which we stand, historical roots of our freedom, let me try to adapt my reflections in a complementary way to his. i think conservatism that will be credible in the years ahead will be active, forward- looking, constructed, constructive, intimately connected with the lives of average citizens, and friendly. let me just go 3 these contentions and try to illustrate briefly. emerson once wrote that there tends to always be a party of

memory and a party of hope. we must be, as we have been in our better days, the party of hope. someone once said conservatism is a democracy including the dead. at least in my state, -- i don't spend much time campaigning to them. that is a wonderful phrase when that expresses our reverence for tradition and our commitment to fundamental timeless principles. in making our believes credible and prevalent once again in this country, our sites must be resolutely forwarding to the future.

an incredibly moving speech was given at the graveyard about the enzio beach head. he give the entire speech to the cross is behind it. in my view, we must with respect to direct ourselves almost entirely to the young people of this country. when we speak to them, we are speaking to their parents and grandparents that want the best for them. i think it is a starting point for our recovery that we examined every issue and present every issue in terms of its implications for those who will soon inherit leadership in this country. i come from a state that is an ominous these days. it has been entrusted with leadership. in our state, we are the party

of purpose. we are the party that defines the agenda, makes new proposals relentlessly, and then pursues them with all of the vigor we have. we are indebted by the opposition at the moment which can only be described as a reactionary, which helps. they are negative, they are backward-looking, they are everything that we must not be. one day, they will recover their footing and bring forward new ideas. for the moment, that is the state of play. we try to never be without an idea on the table or a major change under way. i love the story of winston churchill in his last days of public service after the war, second tore as prime minister,

in the '50s, he goes to the office one morning. the naval briefing officer says really not much to report this morning, mr. prime minister. nothing much is happening. winston churchill said, "let's make something happen." our presentation and our ideas must not be borne in of distractions but in an understanding of connection. if we are going to present a people's agenda, we must not only a searcssert but assert wih credibility. and the tape, which will --

empathy, which is what adam was talking about, to feel deeply about the concerns, the hopes, and the fears of other people is something that must be visibly a part of what we do. i like meetings like this. i have been to a lot of them. one of my friends that described such things as the leader of the theory class. there is a place for that. but if we are to become credible, if we are to achieve leadership through popular consent, we are going to have to earn it. there is a special burden on us. let's be honest. we must never conflate conservatism with the republican party.

we have a very special burden. you can be a silver spoon, blue blood, windsurfing, coastal in the test, but if you where the democratic label, you are presumed to be empathetic and understand the problems of everyday people and vice versa. it is unfair, untrue, but it is reality. it is the reality we must deal with. i have spent the last six years traveling constantly in the back roads in the inner cities of my state. when i stayed overnight with the alexandria family in yorktown. it was probably the 80th time that i have done this. i stayed with people of every description. i traveled by recreational vehicle 100,000 miles probably and many more on one of my two

motorcycles. i performed impromptu weddings and bars. [laughter] when i do this, i learn things and i am able than, i hope, to present and express ideas that you would find familiar in a language that, maybe, helps to bring to us people that might not be reached at the level of of distraction. i don't use the 'd' and the 'r' word. i don't talk about liberals and conservatives. it is not a language i hear people using very often where i see them. if you were to examine what we do, if you were to look at our

house karen -- our health care plan for the uninsured, they are in total control of their health care and for the dollar's better used to pay for it. if you believe that they have the judgment to look out for themselves, if you look for our telecom changes, yes, there is the regulation. i don't talk about that. we affected the largest privatization in american history three years ago. i have never used the 'p' word. we harvested close to $4 billion without a penny of raising taxes or a penny of borrowing.

a fabulous success, but we have presented it as a practical solution to a very real world problem. an idea or a would be movement is only as good as the answers and eventually the results that it produces. a couple of other thoughts. we must recover the fiscal high ground and its available to us. i tell you with certainty, concern about debt and deficit has not gone out of style. many americans are more conscious of it today because they recognize it in their lives and the lives of a neighbor or the life of some business there were associated with. people borrowed too much, saved too little, and are paying a

serious consequence. you are seeing saving rates rise in america. that is a conservative virtue, don't forget. everything paul talked about, about the worsening picture long term, the threat that it poses to every young person, presents an opening. but let's face it. as a group of like-minded people, as a party, a lot of credibility has been forfeited over recent years. it will not return overnight. i think it will only return if we are prepared to engage in some grown-up conversation. i am not a seasoned office holder. i have only held one office and will be the last one i will hold i think i have got enough evidence to say that you could

talk to americans as adults. you don't have to be afraid to 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. . .

i do not get a lot of push back. you have to have the audacity to talk about that and so many other illustrations as i could give you. finally, i think we might -- recovery of credibility and eventually the trust will require come in the near term, if we except with the grace the role of the royal opposition, which i believe is to root sincerely for the nation's success and spread agreement where it exists so that your disagreements are more credible. of course, partisanship at the proverbial shoreline. this means we will have to conduct ourselves in opposition, much more gracefully and better than our opponents did. 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 pitical disposition, as an organizing principle 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 credible conservatism more practical we need to showed the world with the conservatives mean. [applause] >> thank you. which lowry? >> good morning, everyone. it is a pleasure for me to have been invited here today. su