Occasionally you take a moment to look up from the day-to-day or hour-to-hour or tweet-to-tweet turmoil of the Trump presidency. You want a reprieve from the constant and enervating melodrama of the Trump era. You try to take a longer view.
But when you do, what you find are not answers but questions.
Among them: How does this end? Does it end early? If so, when and how? Where, in any case, does it all lead? What does it all imply about the future?
And these: Is President Trump a model for the future of American politics? Are we entering an era of celebrities and demagogues? Or is Trump an aberration? And what about Trumpism? Is it the wave of the future? Are we entering an era of unenlightened populism and illiberal progressivism? Or is Trumpism a dead end?
And more: What about the Republican party? And the conservative movement? Can either be saved? Should they be? How much reinvention of either is needed? How much is possible? What about a third party? A new center?
And yet: Is the new center just the old mushy middle? So is the task to reiterate the modern conservative case for markets, constitutionalism, and American global leadership? Or is fresh thinking needed on all fronts? Do technology and globalization produce fundamentally new challenges? Or is there really nothing that new under the 21st-century sun?
Lots of good questions. There are many who have spent time thinking about these questions over the last year, and especially over the last few months. We ourselves have some thoughts. Unfortunately, some of them are in tension with others. And we change our minds frequently.
So what’s to be done in such uncharted waters, with no reliable compass available? The not entirely satisfactory conclusion we’ve come to is this: Say what you believe about the situation we face. But keep on thinking about the path ahead.
After all, you can have firm views on the merits of various aspects of the Trump presidency, on different legislative efforts and executive actions. You can take a stand in the present. But you can also take a look at the future—acknowledging uncertainty about its shape and keeping an open mind about what comes next.
Consider the Founders in 1776, or Lincoln in 1854, or Churchill in the 1930s. Each took a stand. Yet none knew what was to come next, and all understood that it would be foolish to try to prescribe the future with too much certainty. They knew how much would depend on unforeseen events and the reactions of others and the contingencies of history.
Needless to say, we in no way presume to compare ourselves to these men at those times. But their examples do remind us that while history is always contingent, statesmanship can be real. And as citizens of a democratic republic, we should all aspire to whatever level of statesmanship we can achieve.
Where to begin? Why not with Federalist 1? Consider the argument for moderation:
But consider also that moderation doesn’t mean indecision or irresolution:
That we do not have the gift of prophecy should induce moderation. That we are not blind should embolden conviction. That the republic has survived greater challenges should give us confidence—or at least hope.
