Modern Republican: Arthur Larson and the Eisenhower Years

Preface

ix preface Americans have heard a lot about “compassionate conservatism” recently , but what that label really means in terms of basic philosophy and speci¤c public policies is still pretty unclear. What we know for sure is that it differs signi¤cantly from Reagan-era conservatism, which sought to shrink the size and cost of government (especially by cutting domestic programs) and reduce its role in society. “Government is the problem, not the solution” was the libertarian-like mantra of 1980s-style conservatism. Since 2001, however, the opposite pattern has developed in response to changing conditions, both foreign and domestic. The size and cost of government have grown a great deal since then, and not just with respect to military spending. The administration of George W. Bush is responsible for the biggest single expansion of the welfare state (the prescription-drug-bene¤t program) since the mid-1960s. The “compassionate conservatives” have also pushed successfully for the highest levels of federal spending ever for AIDS research and treatment. At the same time, government intrusion into everyday life has grown, most notably with the passage of the Patriot Act. When one stops to consider that all of these initiatives emerged from a Congress controlled by Republicans, the difference between the current political situation and the Reagan era becomes even clearer. Although the speci¤c policies associated with “compassionate conservatism ” have begun to become more concrete, what they add up to remains vague. Today’s version of “compassionate conservatism” is very much a work in progress, in terms of both de¤ning basic principles and explaining how they apply to contemporary conditions. One of the most important purposes of this book is to help with that process of de¤ning and explaining by providing some useful historical perspective. Like so many other political philosophies, “compassionate conservatism” is not something entirely new but rather represents x preface an effort to update something older. This book explores in depth the basic philosophy and speci¤c public policy positions of that earlier version of “compassionate conservatism”: Eisenhower-era Republicanism. The book’s focus is on a person and a point of view that were much better known half a century ago than they are today. Arthur Larson’s most popular book, A Republican Looks at His Party (1956), made him something of a political celebrity. The New York Times labeled Larson the “chief theoretician” of Eisenhower-era Republicanism. However, with the passing of time and the rise of a newer, more extreme form of conservatism—the “New Right”—in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Larson’s name faded from public memory. Even the label Modern Republican that Larson and Eisenhower used to describe their moderately conservative views now sounds unfamiliar to many close observers of the American political scene. This gap in the nation’s memory has yet to be ¤lled by academic historians. A paradoxical situation has developed instead, in which moderate conservatism has become the least studied yet most in¶uential political force in modern American history. There are, to be sure, some good recent books about more extreme kinds of American conservatism. The New Right in particular and its leading champions, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, have been the subject of several studies, but they tend to begin, chronologically speaking, toward the end of the Eisenhower era and give little attention to its distinctly different political orientation. And while there are a lot of books about Eisenhower and his administration, none of them closely addresses its point of view as such. Most academic bibliographies instead list A Republican Looks at His Party as the most useful source on that subject. This biography of Larson is intended to help ¤ll in that blank spot in the political history of twentieth-century America. Eisenhower and Larson enjoyed a close relationship during the Modern Republican heyday that grew out of similarities in background, outlook, and temperament . Like Eisenhower, Larson hailed from the middle of the country, where moderation was broadly popular. That midwestern upbringing helped give Larson, like Ike, a personality decidedly lacking in sharp edges. There was also a common quality of innocence to both men, in the sense that they both entered partisan politics from other worlds. In Larson’s case that other realm was academia, where he distinguished himself as an expert on the law of the welfare state before rising to high of¤ce in Eisenhower’s administration. Larson’s philosophical turn of mind makes him a very good vehicle to...