The Honorable Donald P. Hodel
Chairman
Summit Power Group, Inc

Don Hodel - Employment- Chairman, Summit Power Group, Inc., an energy and natural resources consulting firm; former Under Secretary (1981-1982) and Secretary (1985-1989), Department of the Interior and Secretary of Energy (1982-1985), under President Reagan; administrator (CEO), Bonneville Power Administration (1972-1977); Republican State Chairman, Oregon, (1966-1967). Special Mention- Former President, Focus on the Family (2003-2005); former president, Christian Coalition (1997-1999); current and former Board of Directors member of a number of New York and NASDAQ stock exchange-listed and privately-held companies; past president, Council for National Policy. Education- B.A., Harvard College; J.D., University of Oregon,  School of Law; three honorary doctor degrees. Personal- Married to Barbara; they live in Silverthorne, Colorado.

"Keeping the Flame Alive"

Thank you, Ed [Meese], for that warm and gracious introduction.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am excited and enthusiastic to be here tonight not just because at my age I am excited to be anyplace, but because it is a great honor to receive from CNP any award at all, however, the Ronald Reagan Lifetime Achievement Award is truly special to me.  

And it is particularly pleasing to receive an introduction from my friend and mentor, former Counselor to the President and former Attorney General of the United States, Ed Meese.  

Let me tell you that through thick and thin, and there was a lot of both, Ed Meese was there for those of us who were Reaganites, and he never wavered in his commitment to the conservative principles so dear to President Reagan’s heart.  Thank you for that, Ed, and thank you for introducing me tonight.

As you may already have figured out, Ronald Reagan was my hero.  It was the greatest privilege of my life to work for him.

Even now I’m sometimes asked what President Reagan was really like.  I always start my answer by mentioning that he had a great sense of humor. 

At one point there was quite a media flap about the fact that he was not awakened in the middle of the night to be told that the U.S. had shot down two Libyan jets over the Mediterranean.  Some time later he said, “I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.”

Maybe his humor on that point led to the fact that in his re-election campaign in 1984, the press, made an issue out of whether he slept at Cabinet meetings.  As I campaigned for him that year, it was a frequent question. 

I honestly answered, “I have never seen the President sleep in a Cabinet meeting . . . at least while I was awake.”

He made other wonderful statements.

Regarding the Soviet Union which, he believed, the U.S. had been propping up for years by our policies, “Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose." 

He understood how people felt about the government: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." 

Although he was a really nice guy, he wasn’t above needling the opposition, "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." 

On government and the taxpayers he got off a lot of zingers: 

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination." 

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." 

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." 

He was one of the world’s truly congenial men.  He was as nice in person as he appeared to be in public.  His “good guy” image was more than just an image.  He really was a good and gracious man who put up with some incredibly boring presentations in Cabinet meetings.  

That’s why, one day, I was so startled during a cabinet meeting when he did such an uncharacteristic thing.  He interrupted a presenter to say, “You’re talking politics.  I want to know what you think is right.”  That was a great object lesson to us all.  

There were all kinds of theories suggested by the press and others in an effort to explain what made him the way he was. 

My belief is that it was his abiding belief and confidence in God.  It was his love of country.  In his letter to the American people announcing his Alzheimer’s diagnosis he wrote, “When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future.”  And finally he was what he was because of a fundamental commitment to human freedom, everywhere in the world.

Listen to his words, "No arsenal, and no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” 

He was a genuine patriot who believed that the hand of God has been upon this nation.

He believed that the human spirit is capable of greatness, and he inspired Americans to strive to make America a “shining city on a hill.”

Like many others who worked for President Reagan, I tried to emulate him. First by determining what was right then pursuing it with courage and determination.

Better than any President in my lifetime he illustrated that ideas matter; values have consequences; and leadership matters.

It has fallen to us, those of us who proudly bear the label of “conservative,” to keep alive the flame that Ronald Reagan ignited.

Unfortunately, that is a tough job.  Conservatives are committed to a cause not a party.  Getting elected and holding office is not the goal.  Doing something useful is.

 However, there is only one party in America, today, that is not completely hostile to conservative thought. For those of you who have been fighting the Republican leadership because of their opposition to conservative ideas, I need to point out it is only the Republican Party that is a potential avenue to political success for conservatives.

Thanks to solid support from conservatives and particularly Christian conservatives, the Republican Party has had great electoral success in the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, governorships and state legislatures.

I see broadly three main types of conservatives:  economic conservatives, social conservatives and those who are both.  Let me say that in my opinion based upon his record and statements Ronald Reagan was both an economic and social conservative.

Let me attempt a hazardous and difficult task. I want to define these terms, “economic” and “social” conservatives.

Clearly economic conservatives focus on economic issues, taxes, especially, but also the other ways in which government affects the economy.  Social conservatives focus on values and moral issues.

The thing, however, that should define the “conservative” element for both is a commitment, like President Reagan’s, to limited government.  

We should not want government to engage in an activity because it happens to suit our idea of what is good if in fact it causes the government to grow:  for example, a seemingly small thing, the speed limit was always a state issue.  Then, because of the energy crisis the Carter Administration couldn’t wait to impose a 55 mph speed limit on America, supposedly to save energy.  

If states did not conform, they lost federal highway money.  They [the states] conformed.  

In the Reagan Administration there were those of us who argued that     the federal government had no business setting speed limits.  We lost that issue because it was not big enough to take to the President, but we lost not on energy grounds, but because the health and safety advocates claimed that the speed limit was now a safety issue.  

Whether energy or safety, in our commitment to limited government, we ought not to inject the federal government into something just because it conforms to our idea of a “good thing.”  Power once given to government will not flow back to the people without a massive effort.

Social conservatives need to be careful that we do not abandon the principle of limited government just because we think the present federal government will govern the right way on one of our key issues.

Economic conservatives need to be sure that we do not expand the power of the federal government, for instance, by subsidizing some particularly favored energy resource.  The government should not be picking winners in the energy market; it does a notoriously lousy job when it tries.

We who claim to be conservatives must never lose sight of this fact:  The government which is strong enough to give us everything we need is big enough to take everything we have, especially our freedom.

I do recognize that any brief definition is imperfect and there are major variations within each category.

What is important to me is that neither economic nor social conservatives can hope to elect candidates without the substantial support of the other.  And, in addition, we have to deal with the fact that within the Republican Party there is a liberal faction which though smaller than either the economic conservative or social conservative blocs.  This liberal faction can be the swing votes in Congress and among the electorate in some states, and, therefore, this troublesome faction has disproportionate influence on our policies.

Be all that as it may, I am distressed by the apparent and seemingly growing hostility between conservatives.  

Most recently I have learned of campaigns where the leaders of the party have reacted strongly against a campaign because it chose to raise the issues of life and marriage.

In mid-September someone I admire and consider to be a strong and wise economic conservative, Dick Armey, wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ in which he was critical by name of Christian conservatives in a way which can only offend and upset them.

We do not need to drive wedges between us if we are seeking to prevent the Left from capturing the government.

Let me say it again:  As much as economic and social conservatives would like it to be otherwise, with few exceptions neither can hope to win elections without the strong support of the other.

And it would be wise to remember that while there are economic conservatives who are not social conservatives, there are very, very few social conservatives who are not also economic conservatives.  So, our leaders should be pleased when social conservatives raise the social issues among their constituents, because when social conservatives turn out to vote on those issues, they also vote for other conservative candidates and issues.

That means to me that if we as conservatives of whatever stripe and if conservative Republicans want to try to set the course of America through the political process, we need to find ways to work together, not attack one another and divide our efforts.

The other grave concern I have is that our elected leaders seem at times to be oblivious to the main concerns of their constituency, that is, conservative Americans.  Let me suggest that there is a reason why it may seem OK for economic conservatives to attack social conservatives and also why our leaders    seem to be out of touch.

Let me tell you a story.

This last August, there was a reunion at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, of the old Jim Watt team from the Department of the Interior.  Thirty or so people showed up at the reunion.  Some are still working inside the beltway; others were from outside the beltway, mostly from the west.

Around the campfire that night, Secretary Watt led a discussion of national issues.  Those of us from outside the beltway were shocked to learn that the insiders had no comprehension of the urgency of the illegal immigration issue.  They viewed it as simply another issue to be worked on.  They had no conception that in my state, Colorado,   illegal immigration is the number one issue among voters.

About that discussion Secretary Watt sent me an email saying, “There were no nuances, no delicate shadings of understanding or misunderstanding, there was just a huge difference in opinion between the Washington crowd, who would have considered themselves 'cause driven conservatives,' and the rest of us.”

Similarly, when the Kelo decision was discussed (that’s the one where the United States Supreme Court said it is constitutional for a local government to use eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another in order to further economic development) the inside-the-beltway people clearly did not think it was much of an issue.  

I can tell you, as Chairman of ccAdvertising, which surveys millions of people on all kinds of issues that there has never been an issue on which there are fewer people in favor of the government’s power than that one!  Not making the Kelo case a political issue is a huge error on the part of the “conservative party” and its candidates.

Now, interestingly to me, neither of these issues, illegal immigration and property rights, would be categorized as a social conservative issue.  Yet, our leadership is totally missing the boat.

How can this be?  

How can they not see how vital the voters’ interest is in these matters?

I have a suggestion as to why:  I believe that once politicians have been inside the beltway in elected positions for a number of years, those who are not strongly philosophical become either confused or persuaded by the constant drumfire from the lobbyists on the Left and particularly by the leftwing Washington Post and the New York Times.  Since the Post and the Times do not see illegal immigration in the same terms the people do, neither do our elected leaders.  Since the Post and the Times do not champion private property rights, Kelo is inconsequential and so our elected leaders miss the public outrage.

Now I distinguish elected leaders from many of you who have also been inside the beltway, some for many years.  But you are philosophical conservatives either economic or social, or both, and you are in touch with your constituencies almost all of which are entirely outside the beltway.  You have not lost sight   of what it is       the people are thinking and what they care about.

There are so many things that should unite us but our Republican elected officials have done a lot of things which leave us shaking our heads.

Economic conservatives cannot fathom the approach to earmarking and the deficit which has led to massive deficits and the growth of government.  We are distressed that there has not been more insistence on extending the Bush tax cuts and eliminating the death tax.

Make these into high visibility issues and you energize our economic conservative base.  But the Post and Times would never breathe a word of that to our leaders.

Social conservatives feel betrayed by failure to bring votes in a timely fashion on key issues like marriage and abortion.  We feel like stepchildren ignored until election time when our votes are needed.

Our leaders risk being mocked and demeaned by the major media if they take the lead on these social issues which are characterized as “fringe” issues and, I think, many of our leaders are intimidated. 

No matter how much they are to blame for not finding out what the voters really think and what they truly care about, the great risk is that if we focus our anger on each other and on the failings of our leadership we will, once again, have the regrettable “opportunity” to be on the outside looking in.

Interestingly, when we are out of power, we get along pretty well because we can band together against the common enemy.  But that common enemy is there, right now.  We should certainly not want to lose access to the leadership of our nation in the hope that we might band together and win it back. . . sometime in the distant future.

How much better it is for us to realize that if we retain the Congress       and the White House at least we have the luxury of disagreeing among ourselves on some of these key policies.  And we have the greater luxury of working together on those things about which there is general agreement, and I specifically refer to confirmation of judges!

Ronald Reagan had his 11th commadnment. "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."  We ought to extend that saying to fellow conservaives. I fear that formulation of his 11th commandment is being violated widely these days.

I believe that the Left and the Post and the Times like nothing better than when they can cause us to fight each other, leaving them the opportunity to walk in and take over.  We should be ashamed of ourselves if we let that happen.

It need not.

We should be wise enough to see through their strategy.  We are assuredly capable of working together.  We have done so in the past to great effect.

That cooperation will be difficult to duplicate in the atmosphere that has developed and how it can be done will depend on many things, among them, who is willing to sit down and work on it and how genuinely committed each participant is to recreating the winning alliance. 

At the same time our elected leaders need to open their eyes and ears to the concerns of their conservative constituents and represent the views of both economic and social conservatives who, together, make a winning combination on Election Day.

I have the feeling that if the Republican leadership had been faithful in pressing forward on our social issues they might have been bullet-proof on the Foley scandal because social conservatives would have known that the leadership was committed to our issues.

In closing let me thank you again for this signal honor of the Ronald Reagan Lifetime Achievement Award.  CNP is an important          meeting ground for conservatives.  To paraphrase Walt Kelly from the ancient comic strip, Pogo, “We have met the vast right wing conspiracy and it is us.”  

You who are members of CNP and who are leaders of the conservative movement in America can give rise once again to the kind of cooperation that is needed for electoral success.

We must not let the Left cunningly set us against each other.

Let me close with this anecdote which I think illustrates what the Left and its friends in the drive-by media are trying to do with us.

A number of years ago, when I could still play sandlot basketball, my son, Dave, and I went over to the local playground to drum up a game.

He and I were adults, and we loved to play as a team.

No one showed up for a while as we warmed up.  Then, 5 young teenagers arrived.  Desperate for a game and unwilling to split up, Dave and I suggested that we play them, 2 against 5.

Now we were half a head taller than any of them, but they were pretty good, and I assure you that if 5 guys play as a team, there is no way that two average guys are going to beat them. 

In fact, as the game got under way they were doing very well and we were quickly falling behind.

At that point I picked out the best player among the five and when I was guarding him, I began telling him things like, “You’re the best player on your team.  Why won’t they pass you the ball?”

When one of his teammates missed a shot, I’d say, “You would have made that.”

Then I told him, “You know when you get the ball you better shoot, because they won’t pass it back to you.”

Within minutes I had broken up their team.  The best player was playing for himself, as were each of his teammates, and, yes, Dave and I beat them and left them arguing with each other over who was to blame.  

By the way, not one of them realized that I was to blame!

Does that sound familiar?  

I think it does.  

But the stakes are so much greater than a sandlot basketball game.  America and the world hang in the balance.

Let us not fall prey to the sweet whisperings from the Left telling economic conservatives that     they can get along without social conservatives and vice versa.  

The only winners with that approach will be the enemies of the America that Ronald Reagan envisioned and which we have committed to keep.

The principle that I hope will guide us as we seek to promote conservative ideals           is to stand for limited government every time we get a chance and resist the temptation to cede “just a little more“power to government at any level because we favor the particular outcome we think will result. 

Ultimately that way lays tyranny and it does not have to be that way.

President Reagan was always an optimist about America.  I am too.  We have the capacity and, more importantly, our cause is true and right.

God bless you and God bless America.