Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: As Republicans look back to remember the legacy of the former president, George H.W. Bush. Our next guest ponders his future. Editor of news magazine National Review, Rich Lowry – the Republican has long been a leading voice on the American right, and just before President Bush’s death was announced, Lowry sat down with our Michel Martin to talk about it.

MICHEL MARTIN: Rich Lowry, thank you so much for talking with us.

RICH LOWRY, EDITOR OF NATIONAL REVIEW: My pleasure.

MARTIN: What would you say it means to be a conservative in the current moment?

LOWRY: Well, I think it means largely the same thing it’s meant in the post-war era – limited government, an emphasis on certain social values and virtues, and a belief in a strong defense. Now, I think Trump has shifted some things. I think kind of the cultural war in this country, the access of it now is less kind of sexual morality issues and more kind of nationalist issues, what’s our national identity, how important are our borders, how important is sovereignty. So I think that’s something that he’s emphasized that’s been part of the conservative mix but not as prominent as it’s been lately.

MARTIN: Has anything shifted for you as a conservative in recent years?

LOWRY: I think the rise of Trump in particular has made me rethink the issue of trade and in particular trade with China where I had sort of accepted the libertarian argument on China. They’re cheating and they’re selling us cheaper stuff. Why is that a bad thing our consumers are buying cheaper goods where now I think it’s more nefarious than that and it’s something that requires a response, not necessarily what Trump is doing policy wise, but it needs to be taken more seriously than it was either under George W. Bush or Barrack Obama.

MARTIN: So we just can’t get away from Mr. Trump, can we?

LOWRY: No, but who can?

MARTIN: We just can’t. We just can’t. OK, so what I was going to ask you is how do you see your role in the current moment?

LOWRY: Well, our role is certainly the same it’s always been with Republican presidents, it’s just been — it’s a little more augmented

with President Trump, but we’ve always called balls and strikes and the cliche. And with every Republican president — with the possible exception

of Ronald Reagan, but we dinged him on quite a lot of things as well — we’ve had a constructive but critical relationship. Now, with Trump

there’s a little more emphasis on the critical because there’s some things we disagree with more fundamentally than with other Republican presidents.

But it’s — it’s just a fascinating and tense time on the right. Because you just have people all over the map on this president, from people who

are basically now flirting with the left to people who are 110 percent defenders of him.

MARTIN: The National Review published a — a — a volume of 22 essays that solely devoted to why Donald Trump is not fit to be president. OK? Now

that he is, has your role changed?

LOWRY: Yes. Well, my view —

MARTIN: What’s your job right now?

LOWRY: — has changed — my — my view has changed in part because circumstances have changed. So we ran that issue in December 2015 when he was one of 17 options. And if we could go back this time and we could do it again and he would be one of 17 options, I’d probably would be with the other 16 still. Maybe I wouldn’t be as — as harsh — harshly critical of him in particular the way we were then, but I would want another option. But that’s not —

MARTIN: Why wouldn’t you be as harshly critical?

LOWRY: Because he’s been more conservative. He — he’s — the way he’s governed has in some ways been just completely as an orthodox Republican. You know, a big tax cut and corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, judicial nominations that, you know, are signed off on by the Federalist Society, in effect if not formally. And that wasn’t — we didn’t necessarily know that was going to be the case when he was running in the primaries. And also, he’s done some things that I think are important and correct that I’m not sure other Republicans would have done. I’m not sure other Republicans would have pulled our of the Paris Accord, I’m not sure other presidents would have moved the embassy to Jerusalem. The downside is, one, entitlements, where I think he’s pulling the party in the wrong direction. Two, trade. Even though I think it’s important to target China and push back against China, I think there’s — you know, the steel tariffs are counterproductive and unnecessary. And then there’s just the — the behavioral issues and the way he conducts himself.

MARTIN: The National Review, among other conservative outlets, has written a great deal about the vulgarity of the culture on the left and what they see as the long-term corrosive effect. So where is it?

LOWRY: I mean, it’s a cost. There’s no doubt about it. It’s a — it’s a political and cultural cost and one I would have preferred to avoid, but he’s president of the United States so here we are.

MARTIN: So what are your editorial meetings like?

LOWRY: They reflect this division. I mean, we have some writers who are constantly appalled by his conduct and really have trouble seeing anything else but that and then we — we have writers who are — are more focused on what they consider the substantive advances. And there are some significant ones. So this is just — it’s attention, it’s a debate within the right, and one that we’ll probably still be debating 20 years from now.

MARTIN: As the editor in chief, do you call it? Do you decide that, you know what, we’re going to ignore behavior directed at allies in favor of these other policies? Do you — do you call it —

LOWRY: Well usually I’m — I’m ultimately — it is my decision. Most of the things we write officially as editors, as editorials are fairly consensus. And we try not to ignore any of those things. It’s just we are never just going to just write about the — the vulgarities and crudities because there are other important things going on —

MARTIN: I was going to ask — and is that because — is that a market decision, is that you don’t want to alienate your supporters who — subscribers, contributors, who —

LOWRY: No, it’s a —

MARTIN: — prioritize those things, or is this a matter of values and ideas?

LOWRY: It’s a substantive decision. I mean, the fact is if Hillary Clinton had been elected, she — she would have been a more polite president, but you wouldn’t have gotten the tax cuts, you wouldn’t have gotten the regulatory reform, you wouldn’t have gotten — pro-life measures that are important to us, you wouldn’t have gotten the reform that we’re just seeing out of the education department, this title IX rule that we think really tilted campus adjudication of sexual harassment allegations —

MARTIN: Well it wasn’t a rule, it was an advisory, which is a little different.

LOWRY: But it was taken as — as a rule because there’s always — whenever the federal government makes such an advisory opinion, or in this case a letter, it — it has a threat of pulling federal funding implicit, which is why so many universities fell in line. Anyway, so the point is these are all real things. They’re really happening, they’re really important to us. We are in favor of them long before Donald Trump was around. We have favored them before Donald Trump favored them, and in my view, it would be perverse to turn around and ignore all those things or oppose them just because Donald Trump’s doing them.

MARTIN: And what about the deficit, which I thought was supposed to be an important issue for conservatives, which has now exploded under this president?

LOWRY: Yes, we’ve written about that a lot, we had a cover last six months or so, specifically on the fiscal rot in Washington. And we are steadfastly advocating for entitlement reform. So, you know, as an opinion magazine, you – you don’t get to just unilaterally decide what you’re side is going to do. You can – you can nudge and argue and hope to have influence over the – the long term, but this is one where the party is – is slid away from us, there’s no doubt about it.

MARTIN: Oh I’m just reading, I’m thinking about Mia Love, the Utah congresswoman who recently lost her seat in a very close election. And I’m paraphrasing from her concession speech, but one of the things that she said in that speech was that the reason that she is a Republican, she sees herself as a deeply conservative Republican, but what she said was that the Republicans do not embrace minorities because they will not listen to them. Is there any validity to that point of view?

LOWRY: Well I take anything she says very seriously and she has a credibility to say it. And this is a historic weakness of the party and I do think there should be more focus on it. And I think one thing that’s happened with the more populous orientation of the Republican Party, there’s been a greater focus on the working class, but it’s – it’s kind of clich, in political circles to talk about the white working class. But the fact is, there are a lot of non-white working class voters in this country. And I think the party has a more populist orientation and makes more of an effort to reach out to working class voters of all races and ethnicities. I think this turn of the party could – could somewhat paradoxically, given where we are now, could unlock some of those voters to the GOP in the way it hasn’t. But you have to try and you have to show up.

MARTIN: Where is the – this kind of racist stream coming from? I mean I know that you’ve taken some stance, I mean you’ve fired people for having written things that you thought were beyond the pale. But for the president to take, you know, days to disavow the anti-Semitic and racist language coming out of Charlottesville –

LOWRY: The president in Charlottesville, his initial reaction was completely appalling. And I think at least part of it was he gets his backup if he’s sort of told there are things that he has to say, you know, that were, quote unquote, “respectable people” want him to say. And that’s a very unhealthy reflex in a lot of instances, and it obviously was in that one. And, you know, eventually he – he went back and fixed it, but he did a lot of damage to himself in the intervening days. But I reject – and I don’t know whether this is just what you’re suggesting, so I don’t want to put words in your mouth, the idea that anyone is concerned about the cultural cohesion of the country or are concerned about immigration policy, that that’s inherently racist.

MARTIN: I’m not talking about immigration policy, no, I’m talking about race per se. I mean what’s your take on whether this is a worthy cause of the conservative movement to address? I mean there are lots of causes, both movements have causes, and I get the sense that the conservative movement sees racism as a – as a sentiment that is ugly but private. I get the sense that people of a different persuasion see it as a something imbedded in institutions that needs to be regulated. Does that seem like a fair – do you – what do you – is that – is that your attitude or not?

LOWRY: I think – I think the – one reason that you get the backs of conservatives up on this issue is that we feel legitimately that the term racism is thrown around indiscriminately and used as a political weapon. And I think there are lots of things that are dumb, that are illegitimate, that are ignorant, that are short of racism. But it seems every week more and more things are deemed racist, which –

MARTIN: What is something deemed racist that you don’t think is racist?

LOWRY: Was Cindy Hyde-Smith, the senator from Mississippi, there’s a video clip of her with a friend and supporter and she says oh this guy is so great, he’s so wonderful, he’s done so much for me. I would do anything for him, if he invited me to a public hanging, I’d go to the front row. And – and that is interpreted, I think, at least by some people, extremely disingenuously and maliciously as her like endorsing hangings, which is – it’s a way of her saying I would do something I don’t want to do and something that’d be very unpleasant because they ask me …

MARTIN: And you can’t think of another analogy?

LOWRY: She did. She actually — she used another one as well.

MARTIN: Like what?

LOWRY: She said I will fight a circle saw for this guy but that wasn’t part of the clip. So it was …

MARTIN: OK. But — but — but given that this is Mississippi — go ahead, I’m sorry.

LOWRY: It was clipped in a selective way and interrupted in the most hostel malicious way to paint her as a racist. So I think we shall all agree that racism is wrong, it should be called out, but if you are in discriminate and using it as a political weapon, you are demeaning the concept. So I think that’s another very important aspect of this debate that the left very often ignores.

MARTIN: There’s — there’s a history of public hangings in Mississippi, which I deeply painful to the people whom she would represent. You don’t think that that speaks to qualification?

LOWRY: What she was trying to say, I think pretty obviously, is oh this guy is great; I’d do anything for him. I’d jump off a cliff for him. If she said that would you — do you really think she’d literally …

MARTIN: No, but she didn’t say that. And she didn’t say that and she represents a state that has a history of public lynchings, vicious public lynchings attended by, you know, hundreds of people as a form of public entertainment.

LOWRY: But it wasn’t — it wasn’t meant literally. It was meant as endorsement of public hangings. It wasn’t meant as endorsement of fighting a circle saw.

MARTIN: OK. But — but — but here’s — here again …

LOWRY: But — but that — you think she’s a racist, you said that.

MARTIN: I don’t — I — that is not my role here but you’re telling me that you know with assurance that she isn’t.

LOWRY: I am telling you with assurance it’s obvious that she didn’t mean it literally because she doesn’t want to fight …

MARTIN: But this — you know what this does speak to a point though, which is that people have different sensibilities and some of it is a question of whose sensibilities deserve a hearing and have the — deserve to be considered. Is that part of what Mia Love was talking about, which isn’t that part of what she was saying is that there seems to be a certain point of view that only certain people’s sensibilities deserve to be entertained and considered. And that people who have different sensibilities even if they are not, you consider them substantively important or somehow to be dismissed. Isn’t that in part what she was saying?

LOWRY: I don’t know whether she’s saying that and obviously metaphorical statement should be interpreted literally in order to drag someone’s name through the mud. In fact, I very much doubt that that’s what she meant.

MARTIN: OK. Let’s figure out where we want to conclude here. I’m wondering what you hope for given that we’re now going to have divided government once again and the democrats are feeling, I think, very empowered in — on the House side and yet the republican’s on the Senate side seem to even at least a couple of more votes even if they don’t have all of the ones that they would want. What are you hoping for?

LOWRY: Judges.

MARTIN: That’s it.

LOWRY: Yes.

MARTIN: It’s all about the judges.

LOWRY: I mean as a conservative that’s really the only foreseeable, you know obviously there can be — events can be intervened but it’s really the only foreseeable good thing that’s going to come out of this Congress. There’ll be spending deals. There’ll be a higher — even higher level of spending than we got in the last Congress and didn’t particularly like. The House will be passing a lot of sort of exemplary legislation representing the new democratic domestic agenda that will have zero chance of passing the Senate or getting to the president’s desk. And — you know fairly — you know within several months we’re going to have the first democratic presidential forum. We’ll have the investigations in the House. We’ll have a Mueller report. We potentially could have the impeachment enquiry and then that takes us through 2019 and then it’s — then it’s all presidential politics all the time.

MARTIN: In a parallel universe, if you were advising the democrats, what would you advise them to do?

LOWRY: Nominate Joe Biden.

MARTIN: Why? To make life better for you as a conservative or you mean for them. I’m talking about for them.

LOWRY: No, no, for them. I think — I think the — if you look at the electoral map and a lot can change but let’s say Trump holds all estates from 2016. Democrats have to win all Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to win. And the results in 2018 were encouraging for them in all three of those states but they have to have some more appeal to a working class white voters than Hillary Clinton did. They need to show they care about them more than Hillary Clinton did and that they understand, at least, their culture and their values. And I think a candidate like Joe Biden would — would be best. Maybe Sherrod Brown would be another. Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota another. Kind of a Midwestern working class sensibility would be the easiest way for them to win. And I think that Trump, he’s — he has a path. He has a clear Electoral College path. But it’s really narrow.

LOWRY: It might involve losing popular vote again, and at this juncture given his popularity is dependent on the Democrats nominated candidate he can make unacceptable. And I think someone like Joe Biden, it’d be very hard for him to do that. So that’d be my advice. As very often with my advice even with Republicans, it’ll probably be ignored.

MARTIN: Rich Lowry, thank you so much for talking with us.

LOWRY: Thank you.