A Conservative Brand

By Ernest Istook

Washington Times - Feb. 8, 2009

A few years ago we said goodbye to the Oldsmobile. It went the way of the Pierce Arrow, Plymouth and Studebaker.

Some believe conservatives and Republicans will be the next brands doomed to follow into extinction. They forecast death by suicide for the GOP and extinction via political climate change for conservatives. 

But let's not bury either group beside the Whigs and the Mugwumps. Republicans and conservatives overlap but are not identical. Yet they need each other to flourish because Democrats own the liberal brand. Unless they have a conservative brand, Republicans will have no brand at all. 

Most conservatives believe that America will back them if they simply stand firm on their principles. But that's not enough because today's liberal dominance in Washington reflects American attitudes more than we'd like to admit. The economy, demographic shifts and having a skilled liberal communicator as president make it insufficient for conservative officeholders to abide by their principles. 

John F. Kennedy's famed inaugural speech challenge has been flipped upside-down. Asking "what you can do for your country" is redefined to mean supporting big government rather than a call to self-responsibility. 

Conservatives must accept the burden of educating a nation whose core founding principles have been eroded by left-leaning media, Hollywood and political correctness, and damaged by conservative misbehavior. 

Fixing our brand requires that we educate, communicate and advocate differently. The lower-tax message won't resonate with the millions of Americans who already enjoy zero-income-tax liability, thanks to conservative efforts. Those voters ask, "What have you done for me lately?" 

The high cost of Congress is the way to re-establish the appeal to personal pocketbooks. We need a kitchen-table agenda that reflects both the concerns of the moment and timeless principles. "Economic stimulus" benefits are worth less to families than if Washington halted the policies that keep jacking up prices (often in the name of helping children or, more recently, to protect the planet). 

This consumer-oriented conservative approach should focus on how government has escalated the costs of everything from health care to energy, food and more. Programs and subsidies touted by the left are often an effort to offset and mask these high prices. 

The approach is not new. Ronald Reagan convinced the nation that government was often the problem, not the solution, and he told stories to back it up. Today, there's even more proof than in Mr. Reagan's time. 

The most recent energy bill made food, cars, gasoline and even light bulbs more expensive. Washington has caused soaring medical bills and health insurance, washing machines that have doubled in price, and "lo-flo" toilets that don't flush right. Automakers projected the bill would raise car prices by $5,000 to $7,000 per vehicle — an extra burden Detroit doesn't need. 

Such details are readily available but only rarely exploited. When candidate Barack Obama told a newspaper that "under my [energy] plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," it went almost unnoticed. Why does the left keep subsidizing alternative energy? It costs more (even after subsidies), causing higher fuel bills and lower mileage. Ethanol subsidies diverted so much corn that food prices soared. 

A 2004 government report admitted that federal regulations cost our economy at least $1.1 trillion each year. That's $3,666 per person, so it's more than $15,000 for a family of four — in addition to taxes. Federal red tape is also a huge reason why health care is so expensive. For each hour spent with patients, our doctors, nurses and their staff must spend equal time doing the paperwork dictated by 135,000 pages of federal health care regulations. Then there's government's role in the mortgage meltdown that started our economic nose dive. 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. The requirement started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that had more than doubled, to 28 percent. 

The true price of big government should be told to families who sit around their kitchen table to consider their finances. The full cost goes beyond taxes; it's also an issue of freedom. Congress' bright idea to ban incandescent bulbs is especially galling. Smart shoppers can buy them for under 25 cents each, but the new curly-cue fluorescent bulbs run $2 or more. 

But even if they last eight times longer and save energy, I resent Congress telling me I've got no choice. Plus, since the new bulbs contain mercury, we're given special rules to dispose of broken or burned-out bulbs. 

For conservatives to succeed, it's not enough to find new thinkers to replace the likes of William F. Buckley. Strong voices must come from elected leaders, to demonstrate how thought can be translated into action. More than a political leader, Newt Gingrich was and remains an educational leader. The same with Dick Armey. The loss of those two smaller-government champions greatly diminished the Republican majority in Congress. They've not been replaced in that role. 

Even if the right can duplicate President Obama's campaign mastery of modern communications, the message must resonate. After all, smaller, less-intrusive government would indeed be "change." Conservatives must educate and communicate better. But without something worthwhile to say — unless we stand for something — all efforts will be wasted. 

The neglected message is that big government is the cause, not the solution, for many of our current problems. That message should be told as Mr. Reagan always did it, with a good story and a smile. Optimism is the final key ingredient to carry the day. 

• Former Rep. Ernest Istook, Oklahoma Republican, calls himself a "recovering congressman" after serving 14 years in the House of Representatives. His e-mail address is eistook@gmail.com.