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

Politics & Policy

Demagoguery Is Not Leadership

The government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand has, with the support of the opposition, decided to enact fundamental changes in the nation’s firearms laws less than a week after the massacre at two Christchurch mosques. This is the opposite of leadership. It is also an example of why ... Read More
White House

The Media’s Disgrace

There will soon enough be an effort to memory-hole it, but the media coverage of the Russia investigation was abysmal and self-discrediting — obsessive and hysterical, often suggesting that the smoking gun was right around the corner, sometimes supporting its hoped-for result with erroneous, too-good-to-check ... Read More
Politics & Policy

What Was Trump So Annoyed About?

One of the stranger arguments that I heard throughout the Mueller saga -- and am hearing today, now that it's turned out to be a dud -- is that Donald Trump's irritation with the process was unreasonable and counterproductive. This tweet, from CNN's Chris Cilizza, is a nice illustration of the genre: Donald ... Read More
U.S.

Political Theatrics

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Jonah Goldberg’s weekly “news”letter, the G-File. Subscribe here to get the G-File delivered to your inbox on Fridays. Dear Reader (Including all you whippersnappers under the age of 50), I’m writing this from somewhere over the Atlantic. At least I hope that’s ... Read More