The Corner

Bold Visions and Historical Choice

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Dorothy Rabinowitz has what could turn out to be one of the defining commentaries of the year. She hopes Mitt Romney will show “a capacity to run a campaign not obviously dependent on the latest polls or the fears of consultants.” She urges him to avoid “the picture of hesitancy and political caution” that John McCain displayed in 2008, and instead emulate the “formidable, cogent, and relentless” Obama critic we see in John McCain today, “a man free of useless caution.”

Having observed several major political campaigns up close, and being a lifelong student of military history, I would take Rabinowitz’s point a step further: Caution can be worse than useless. One must always be careful, but that’s not the same thing. In any field of strategy, an overabundance of caution is usually suicidal. And in general, taking a risk-averse approach with you on the campaign trail is often the most reckless thing you can do. Of all of Napoleon’s vast treasury of sayings, perhaps the most famous is: l’audace, toujours l’audace.

And these are times that call for audacity. Our generation faces a moment of historic decision. Perhaps never in American history have two more different visions of government been so evenly pitted against each other for the people to choose. In one vision, government is the center of public life, and economic freedom is equated with a dehumanizing descent into “social Darwinism.” In the other vision, limited government, economic freedom, and self-reliance are essential for a society to be both successful and virtuous, while the entitlement state creates a dehumanizing descent into enfeebled dependency. Down one path lies the road to Greek-style perdition; down the other lies a chance for renewal and resurgence.  

Henry Kissinger once said that the essence of statecraft is to extract from the compulsion of circumstances an element of choice. From the people’s point of view, the same is true of elections: Their purpose is to give people a real historical choice. Historical choice is as elusive in democratic politics as it is in diplomacy. But the better our leaders succeed in framing the choice ahead in terms of a bold historical vision, the clearer and more historic the choice will be. So please: l’audace, toujous l’audace.

Mario Loyola — Contributing editor Mario Loyola is senior fellow and Director of the Center for Competitive Federalism at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. He began his career in corporate ...

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More