My college years provided a unique opportunity: spending time with John Danforth, then a U.S. Senator representing Missouri, in the early 1980s. During breaks and summers, I was often invited to his Washington, D.C. home. Observing Senator Danforth both personally and in the public eye left a lasting impression. This experience offered a close look at a dedicated public servant, and it shaped my understanding of principled leadership, particularly within the conservative movement.
Even then, John Danforth was recognized as a successful and thoughtful politician. Remarkably, he dedicated himself to crafting his own speeches, each distinctly reflecting his personal style. His arguments consistently linked policy positions to fundamental principles, a trait undoubtedly sharpened by his dual degrees in law and divinity from Yale University – a rare achievement highlighting his intellectual depth and moral grounding. This unique background informed his approach to public service, blending legal precision with ethical considerations.
Senator Danforth’s leadership extended beyond Washington. He enjoyed broad popularity across Missouri, famously stating his familiarity with every corner of the state. Adding to his multifaceted persona, he regularly served as an Episcopal minister at St. Alban’s. While his sermons possessed the expected charm of a seasoned politician, his commitment went deeper. During significant religious periods like Holy Week and Christmas, he would don his collar and visit Washington D.C. hospitals and nursing homes, offering communion to those unable to attend church. This demonstrated a genuine commitment to service that transcended political life.
In the Senate, John Danforth established a clear record as a principled conservative. He was an early and consistent advocate for the pro-life cause, predating its widespread adoption by the Republican Party. Fiscal responsibility was another key tenet of his political philosophy, a cause he championed tirelessly. Perhaps most significantly, Danforth spearheaded the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. His respected standing among Senate colleagues proved crucial in solidifying support for Thomas, ultimately securing his confirmation. Many conservatives recognize the profound impact of this effort, acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s originalist jurisprudence of recent years owes a significant debt to Danforth’s unwavering support for Justice Thomas.
John Danforth’s voice remains relevant and insightful today. This was recently highlighted by his compelling column in The Wall Street Journal, where he addresses the identity crisis within the Republican Party. His article serves as a powerful defense of traditional conservative principles against the rising tide of populist sentiment. Danforth eloquently articulates the dangers of populism, contrasting it with the foundational ideals of true conservatism.
For Lincoln, America’s hope was in its people, and the leadership’s responsibility was to evoke the people’s most noble instincts, “the better angels of our nature.” True conservatism places more emphasis on the soul of the nation than on the policies that emanate from Washington. Populist leaders like Donald Trump—who openly flouts the standards of basic human decency and appeals to rage (“I am your retribution”)—evoke our basest instincts.
Danforth argues that today’s populists have strayed from the core conservative commitment to ordered liberty, a principle championed by Edmund Burke during the French Revolution and defended by Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War. He emphasizes the importance of upholding the constitutional framework that allows for the orderly resolution of political differences.
Committed to Lincoln’s purpose, traditionalists uphold the Constitution, the structure that allows us to address and resolve our political differences in an orderly way. We are in the tradition of Edmund Burke, often called the father of conservatism. Shocked by the terror of the French Revolution, Burke warned Britain that chaos would ensue should the structure of society be overthrown in the name of the people. On Jan. 6, 2021, we saw how an attack on the Constitution could lead to the chaos Burke foretold.
Furthermore, Danforth critiques the policy alignment of populism with progressive agendas, pointing out the contradiction between populist rhetoric and traditional conservative values of limited government and fiscal discipline. He notes the expansion of national debt under populist administrations and the embrace of government intervention in the marketplace, policies more akin to progressive Democrats than traditional Republicans.
Populists are now attempting to uproot policies deeply planted in Republican conservatism. We are the party of fiscal discipline, but the national debt rose nearly 40% during Mr. Trump’s presidency. We are the party of limited government, yet in the name of helping working people, populists support massive intervention in the marketplace through federal controls on prices and interest rates and, as in Disney’s case, using government to punish a corporation for expressing “woke” opinions. In their big-government activism, populists more resemble progressive Democrats than traditional Republicans.
While acknowledging some valid concerns within populism, such as border security and a desire for patriotism, Danforth’s core message underscores the enduring importance of unifying leadership, respect for law and order, and a commitment to limited government. These principles, he argues, remain fundamentally popular and essential to a significant portion of the Republican base. It is crucial, therefore, that Republicans across the country heed John Danforth’s warnings. Ignoring his call for a return to traditional conservative values risks the future of the Republican Party itself.
Learn more: House Budget Plan Proposes Commonsense Welfare Changes | Two Sentences Will Strengthen SNAP’s Support for Work | A Nonprofit Opens Doors to College | Work Is Essential to the American Dream
