Ladies and gentlemen:

What a pleasure to be here.

I’d like to thank my friend Marv Krinsky for inviting me. There is a guy I would like to see hold public office. He’d be good. And you know America is a great country when a savvy, street-smart New Yorker can become a good, rock-ribbed Ohioan. I like to think that Marv combines the best of both worlds.

It’s a pleasure to be with Ken Blackwell today. A lot of us, around the country, have followed his career with great interest. I look forward to seeing what he’ll do next. But even if he decided to rest on his laurels, he would have accomplished a lot. That has certainly not gone unnoticed.

I would also like to say a word about a man many of you probably know: Tom Workman, who for many years has been associated with Ohio politics, and with the Ashbrook Center, which he loves. Tom is a dear friend of mine, and I admire him immensely. I sometimes think of him as The Last Eagle Scout. Columbus has lost him, for the time being, but we have him in New York, where he’s living in a dee-luxe apartment in the sky (as we say) — and on the East Side, too — and setting the world on fire. I doubt I know a more solid man than Tom.

I never had the pleasure of knowing Tom Van Meter, whose scholarship fund we support today. I’ve heard some about him, though: I understand he was a shy, retiring, moderate politician, always hewing to the middle of the road, never sticking his neck out, never acting or speaking boldly, always careful not to rock the boat. Of course, I’m kidding: He was the opposite of that type. And thank goodness for it.

I’m always calling for a little more boldness in the Republican party — more of the Van Meter approach. I think it would do us a lot of good. It’s not every day that I quote Louis Farrakhan, but I learned a useful phrase from him: "to straighten your back. " One of my great hopes in life is that Republicans and conservatives will straighten their backs, and hold their heads high, and engage with the Left boldly, especially on a moral basis.

The Left can be very intimidating. I’ve known them all my life. I grew up around them. I was educated by them (if "educated" is the word). Their influence has left a deep mark on me, although probably not the one they intended. And there’s no one I admire more than the politician, or the professor, or the ordinary Joe who will go toe-to-toe with them.

As a journalist, I get around some, and last summer I attended the two political conventions: the Republican in Philadelphia, and the Democratic in L.A. And some of us noticed something peculiar: The Democrats were always talking about the Democratic party: "We’re Democrats, " "We’re proud to be Democrats, " "We Democrats are the best party, the only party, the party of decency and love and enlightenment, unlike" — you know who. Every speaker up on that podium in Los Angeles spoke of the Democrats; spoke of the party.

In Philadelphia, the word "Republican" was scarcely breathed. It was so strange. Hardly any Republican talked about his party. Hardly any expressed pride in it, spoke up for it, recited its history, boasted of the good it has done for this country — and it is considerable good. If the word "Republican" was mentioned at all, it was in the context of bipartisanship: You know, "Republicans and Democrats can work together, " "We Republicans can reach out across the aisle, " and so on.

Course, there’s nothing wrong with this — in fact, it’s vital in the politics of a democracy — but, still, it was strange: certainly at a flag-waving political convention. If you can’t be partisan at your own convention, when can you be? And this behavior — this reticence about the party — would be perfectly understandable if the Republicans were the minority party. At the time, however, they had a majority in the U.S. Senate, a majority in the House, a majority of the state legislatures around the country, and the great majority of the governorships. I have no interest in scorekeeping. My only point is: This is not exactly a party that has to meet in a phone booth. All the Republicans lacked at the time was the Oval Office, and they were soon to get that — if by the skin of their teeth.

The Republican party has a lot to hold its head high about. Our friend Jack Kemp and others like to refer to "the party of Lincoln. " But, for heaven’s sakes, you don’t have to go back that far. What about the party of today? I have my complaints about it, believe me — I spend most of my time writing about them — but the Republican party is, by and large, the party of equal opportunity, the party of equality under the law, the party of progress, the party of reform, the party of freedom. It is also — you can’t say this too loudly in some places — the party of liberalism. I mean, the old liberalism: the liberalism that acknowledges people as people, and Americans as Americans, instead of lumping them into races and classes and tribes. This is extremely important. Let the Democrats be the party of disunity, and Balkanization, and group privileges. If they want to drop the banner of liberalism — the true liberalism — we might as well pick it up. And we largely have.

I’d like to tell a personal story — but one with broad implications, too. Several years ago, a cousin of mine, whom I was just getting to know, confided something to me. She said, "Jay, I’ve never met a decent person who was a Republican. I don’t mean to give offense, but I’m curious: Why are you a Republican? "

Nice, huh? Note the premise imbedded in her statement: that the Democrats are obviously the moral, virtuous party — the party of humanity — while the Republicans are . . . not, to put it mildly. How could a good person — at least a seemingly good one — be a Republican? It occurred to me at the time that a Democrat is almost never put on the defensive like that. A Democrat — at least in my experience — hardly ever has to justify his party membership. It’s the Republican who’s under an assumption of guilt: He must prove that he does not, in fact, have horns and a tail.

Wouldn’t it be kind of neat if, for example, my cousin — just once — had to explain herself to us? That would be a switcheroo. I might have said to her, "You think you’re so great? You thinkyou’re on the side of the angels? Well, dear one, it may interest you to know that some people think of your party as" — let’s reel off a litany — "the party of welfare dependency; the party of abortion on demand; the party of racial division; the party of a crumbling Social Security program; the party that, in the last stage of the Cold War, succumbed to appeasement, and worse; the party long tolerant of destructive drugs; the party of a noxious popular culture; the party discouraging of entrepreneurship and punishing of success; the party of taxation so confiscatory that it borders on thievery; the party that has turned our universities into ideological prisons, stifling free inquiry and debate; the party that has made the public schools the plaything of education-establishment militants; the party that has abandoned sensible conservation for a ludicrous Earth-worship; the party that is grudging about military preparedness; the party that is maniacally hostile to anti-missile defenses; the party that demands public subsidy of execrable, hateful pseudo-art; the party that labors day and night to control the lives of average Americans, whom it at turns patronizes and despises."

Well, now: That’s not exactly polite cocktail-party chatter, is it? Pretty rough stuff. I don’t advocate rudeness — necessarily. I simply find it interesting that Democrats aren’t used to being talked to that way. They are accustomed to being congratulated and praised. I think it would be nice if they had to be on their toes a little.

But for that to happen, Republicans are going to have to get out of their defensive crouch. They’re going to have to . . . straighten their backs. And they will have to convince themselves that they are not, in fact, guilty. Too often, they go around acting guilty. They cringe. To borrow the words of my friend and colleague David Pryce-Jones, they seem to have internalized the Democratic critique of them. Are you familiar with the crack, "In their hearts, they know they’re wrong" ? That, of course, is a play on the old Goldwater slogan, "In your heart, you know he’s right" — but it is more applicable to today.

In no area is Republican defensiveness worse than in the area of race. In no area is Republican confidence and boldness more important than in the area of race. The Democrats have us pretty much cowed on this subject. The term "racist" is about the most incendiary, the most damning in our language now, and the Democrats use it without restraint and without shame. The Republicans’ usual response amounts to: "Please don’t call me a racist. I’m not one. And it hurts my feelings when you call me that. Please don’t hurt me anymore. " That’s not good enough. Their response should be more like, "How dare you? How dare you do that, not only to me, but to the country at large? And you know what else? I’m going to make you pay. " One of my great worries in the 2000 campaign was that we would lose it on race — and we almost did. The Republican ticket faced some truly abhorrent tactics. For example, Al Gore went before the NAACP, and — speaking about the skepticism that some of us have about the census technique known as "sampling" — he said, "They don’t even want to count you! " Consider for a second the impact of those words — their impact on a country that lives on a racial knife’s-edge: "They don’t even want to count you! " This was, of course, a lie, and a lie with consequences. Gore might as well have lobbed a grenade in a crowded square, terrorist-style. Republicans never really called him on it. And that brings up another point: It’s up to Republicans to do such calling, because the media won’t do it for them. Think, too, of what Gore said, in the closing days of the campaign, about the general Republican philosophy for the courts: judicial restraint. He said that we — George W. Bush, in particular — wanted to return to a time when a black man counted as only three-fifths of a human being. That is another grenade. How can we achieve racial reconciliation — an American harmony — with one party acting like that, always keeping people whipped up in a state of hatred and distrust? And for one of the worst reasons possible, I might add: the desire — usually the desire of white politicians — to gain political office.

And remember the lowest point: The NAACP, a key part of the Democratic coalition — probably the key part — put up an ad that all but accused Bush of lynching a black man in Texas. (This was the James Byrd case.) And Gore — never one for subtle politics — went around campaigning with the dead man’s sister.

Then came Florida. The Democrats decided — it comes naturally to them — to perpetrate the fiction that Republicans had suppressed the votes of black citizens. Donna Brazile, the Gore campaign manager, said that black Floridians had been kept away from the polls by — and I quote — "guns and dogs. " Imagine: "guns and dogs. " This was yet another grenade, or more like a bomb, calculated to wreak racial havoc, which, of course, it did. But did anyone challenge her on it? Did anyone condemn her for it? No: not the media, and not any Republican, in any forceful way.

There are thousands of such instances. Once I start, I find it hard to stop. It was a favorite trick of the Clinton administration to allege, right before an election, that Republicans were intent on blocking black votes. Janet Reno, at the Justice Department, did this in 1998 and again in 2000. There was never a shred of truth to it — it was just an invention, a lie. But, again, not a harmless one. And no one was ever made to pay a price for it.

Finally, recall the campaign against Ward Connerly’s proposition in California to ban race and gender preferences in public institutions. Connerly and his allies deliberately adopted the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act — language that is scrupulously race-neutral, asserting the old liberalism. The Democrats’ response? Bob Shrum, perhaps the leading operative in that party, put up an ad that featured David Duke and a burning cross. Later, Connerly — no violet — cornered him on it. Shrum explained, with a shrug, "We didn’t have much money, and we had to get the biggest bang we could for the buck. "

So, this is what Republicans are up against; this is what they have to overcome. If they fail to fight — if they fail to rip off the scarlet "R, " for racist, that the Democrats have pinned to their chests — they will never make further progress with the American electorate. George W. Bush received a pathetic 9 percent of the black vote last November. And, frankly, I don’t believe it was his fault. I think he campaigned fairly well. I think he was simply unable to remove his "R" — to throw off the white sheet that the Democrats had placed on him. The shame of that 9 percent lies not with Bush, I would argue; rather, it lies with his opponents, who defamed him unconscionably.

Republicans could help themselves by — just for starters — pointing that out.

To make headway in this area takes brave men: men like Ward Connerly, who is called Tom for his troubles, when he is, of course, the opposite: a free and independent man who will stand up for his principles, bowing and scraping — shuffling — for no one, including the black establishment. And it takes brave white politicians who will wade in where they’re told they must not, to fight for a colorblind and united America, for the old "E pluribus unum. " Republicans need to make their opponents ashamed for the racial arson they practice. When you think about it, it shouldn’t be hard.

Republicans could use some boldness on the economic front, too. We get killed rhetorically on this subject. The Democrats manage to tag us as the party of the rich, looking out for the interests of people who ride in limos, smoke expensive cigars, and make fun of their servants. This, of course, is an absurdity: Republicans are the party of opportunity and prosperity, and who needs those things most? Those who don’t have them, namely, not the rich. The Democrats often make us feel guilty for advocating tax cuts; they should taste some of their own medicine, being made to feel guilty for standing in their way.

Once, on a "Firing Line" many years ago, Bill Buckley asked Jeane Kirkpatrick to explain something that seemed inexplicable: the political success of socialism — of economic unfreedom — in democratic countries. She noted that the rhetoric of socialism is more comforting than the rhetoric of freedom. The socialists have words like "fairness" and "equality" and "community" and "brotherhood" and "caring. " The free-marketeers are easily painted as selfish, rapacious, and Darwinian. Socialist rhetoric, she sighed — think of Dick Gephardt, posing with that luxury Lexus — is extremely hard to counter.

Yes, it is: But we can try harder. We can turn socialist rhetoric on its ear, and explain how an open economy — stuffed with opportunity — is fairest of all, especially for the present have-nots.

On education, too, the Republicans could stand to be bolder — much bolder. They should take the offensive — BE offensive, if necessary — pointing out that the education establishment, particularly as represented by the unions, is not only misguided and incorrect, but harmful and cruel. Its war against school choice is nearly impossible to defend, on moral grounds. Here, the Republicans have the position of reform, and innovation, and progressivism — even of civil rights. It is the Democrats who are the "conservatives, " so to speak, clinging to a system that, in many places — the inner cities, in particular — has proven a failure. All for the sake of what? Pride?

A great many children — most of them black and Hispanic — are locked into dangerous, violent schools, to say nothing of schools that don’t teach anything. Thanks to the work of the Democratic party and its allies, these children and their parents have no alternative. They are denied a future. As David Horowitz and others have pointed out, if the republicans were responsible for such a situation, they would be called — what else? Racists — and perhaps not without justice.

The GOP could use some spine and fearlessness on Social Security reform — why don’t I just go ahead and use the word "privatization" what’s wrong with that? — the environment, gun control, health care, and many other subjects as well.

If I seem unduly passionate in talking about this, please forgive me: It probably has something to do with my past. When I was growing up, I was led to believe that "Republican" meant bigoted, ignorant, racist, greedy, narrow-minded, elitist, war-mongering, chauvinistic, callous, and a lot of other things. It’s not true. Moreover, it never was. No Republican need be cowed. No Republican need dip his head in shame. No Republican need suffer guilt for the principles and policies his party espouses. We can speak boldly and self-confidently — even brazenly — to our opponents and to the country as a whole, and everyone will be better off for it. A little of the Van Meter spirit could work a world of good.

I can tell you that it’s hard to be a student on campus who won’t run with the herd. It can be rather lonely, and painful. I bless and thank any institution that is honest and sincere and fair, and that seeks to bring a little balance to education. I am very grateful for the Ashbrook Center. I have known some Ashbrook scholars, and delight in their work, and disposition. I congratulate Marv Krinsky and Peter Schramm and everyone else who labors in this vineyard. The Van Meter Scholarship Fund is a wonderful cause. May it grow and thrive.

Thank you so much.