Kevin Roberts sees the need for what amounts to a second American revolution—a peaceful one of fundamental change, which he hopes will result in the downfall, if not destruction, of institutions that buttress the corrupt “Uniparty” in Washington.
Kevin Roberts. Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America. (285 pages, HarperCollins, 2024.
During the recently concluded presidential campaign something called Project 2025 attracted a good deal of media attention, specifically legacy media attention. Even more specifically, that would be legacy media attention that was driven by extremists within the Democratic party who were bent on attaching the extremist label to their Republican counterparts.
Project 2025 was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. Accompanying its promotion was the publication of this book by the president of that Washington-based operation. Part memoir and part policy prescription, Dawn’s Early Light is, extreme. That would be admittedly extreme, as far as the author is concerned, and necessarily extreme, as far as author and reviewer are concerned.
Gone are the days of what political scientists might refer to as the American version of broker politics. Those would be the days when each major party had two wings. One of the wings of the Democratic party was decidedly liberal, while the other fluttered somewhere between somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative. The Republican wings both fluttered and sometimes flapped, depending upon the occasional dominance of its conservative wing and the confusion of its own somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative other wing.
In any case, the strange birds that resulted from these ill-matched wings necessitated two stages of broker politics. The first stage was the necessary wheeling and dealing within each party, which was then followed by the equally necessary wheeling and dealing between the two parties as legislation lurched its way to final passage. Such negotiations could also be described as the days of the dominance of what Kevin Roberts calls the “Uniparty.”
Of course, the Uniparty was a bird of sorts all its own. While not the strangest of birds, meaning a fowl with two left wings, it was a bird with a very dominant left wing. Hence the flight pattern of the Uniparty and the enlargement of both the national debt and our international obligations–and presumptions.
That would be the party that is now in the process of “going, going gone,” as your favorite baseball play-by-play broadcaster might call a home-run bound ball. To be sure, the home run call of Kevin Roberts in these pages is one of a very different sort. Whether it’s a game winner in this case has yet to be determined.
It’s also the case, at least as far as Roberts is concerned, that the potential game-changer might finally be upon us. One wonders if his opposite numbers on the other side of the proverbial aisle might well agree. After all, they have been slowly building toward this historical moment as well.
The death of the uniparty will also mean that Franklin Roosevelt will have finally gotten his wish. After all, his not-so-secret goal was a two-party system grounded in much greater ideological purity. That would be the sort of purity that herded liberals into the Democratic party and confined conservatives to the Republican alternative. In fact, in 1938, FDR put his wish into action by seeking to purge conservative Democrats from the party. That action failed. Today, however, it is on the verge of complete success, courtesy not of any overt purging, but of gradual attrition and evolution.
The only question that remains is which party will be dominant when the death of the Uniparty is unmistakable–or at least when it is on life support and clearly beyond reviving. Roberts believes that we are already at that point, and he may well be right. His opposite numbers on the other side of the aisle might well agree.
That, however, is the extent of any agreement. The differences that exist between the two extremes are, well, extreme. What’s more, the extremes of each party are increasingly the mainstream of each party. So, the two larger questions that remain are obvious: Which extremist-minded party will ultimately be in charge? And will that party remain in power for a lengthy period of time, maybe even as lengthy as the Uniparty of Kevin Roberts’ justifiable ire?
Of course, it is possible that a very different uniparty might emerge. That would be a uniparty that is bent on gradually dismantling the handiwork of its original counterpart. That would be the very Uniparty which has given us the deep state and its woke agenda, the existence of which has called into being any number of opponents. Far from the least of those opponents is Kevin Roberts, who has sought to detach the Heritage Foundation from any past association with, guess what, the arch-villain that was that original Uniparty.
Here multiple ironies intrude. Now that the long ago dream of Franklin Roosevelt is on the verge of finally being belatedly realized, it’s quite possible that a future potential Franklin Roosevelt will be disappointed and frustrated at having to play a minor role at best in an American political world dominated by a rightist-inclined uniparty.
More than that, the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt was solidified and expanded upon by the Uniparty, and not by the dominance of an ideologically pure liberal party. In truth, it’s entirely possible that had FDR realized his dream the day of reckoning for New Deal style governance would have come much sooner.
And the additional irony? The current leader and initiator of the Republican party is a non-ideologue by the name of Donald Trump. Extremist politics and ideologically driven politics more often than not go hand-in-hand. Not so, at least not so at this potentially historic moment. And it could be a very historic moment indeed.
To be sure, it might be even more historic if not one, but two ideologically driven political parties were about to head into some sort of political war against one another. But such is not the case as we launch into the second quarter of the twenty-first century. Yes, the once liberal Democratic party of Hubert Humphrey and “Scoop” Jackson has gradually morphed into a Democratic party in which the leftist ideology of cultural Marxism is at least equal to, if not dominant over, its liberal past. This, after all, is the sort of thing that can happen when ideological purity is a prominent political goal.
Not so its Republican counterpart. Witness Donald Trump himself, who once readily dished out money to both wings of the Uniparty. Then witness the author of this book as well. Kevin Roberts is not exactly a Trump clone. Far from it in fact. He’s not a wealthy developer or a television celebrity. He’s neither an out-sized personality nor a New York wannabe of any sort. He’s also not a thrice-married man with a reputation to match. And he’s neither a seeker of public office nor targeted for courtroom appearances by his political enemies because of his political ambitions.
On the other hand, there are a few not-so-minor similarities. Both are instinctive American patriots, and neither is an ideologue of any sort. Lastly, to one degree or another both Trump and Roberts are johnny-come-latelies of sorts when it comes to contending against both the Uniparty and the ideological left.
By his own admission, Roberts is a recovering neoconservative. Born in 1974, a youthful Kevin Roberts supported Pat Buchanan in 1992. A Cajun on his mother’s side, it only made sense for him to do so, since Buchanan swept Cajun country. Following his Buchananite flirtation, Roberts generally followed the Uniparty party line on national issues for a number of years. But no more.
If anything, Roberts today is much more a Buchananite than anything else. His foreign policy chapter is titled “We’re Not an Empire,” but it might well have read “A Republic, not an Empire.”
Roberts occasionally, but seamlessly, weaves his own story into and around his policy recommendations. A native Louisianan, Roberts was essentially raised by his Cajun grandparents. If that reminds you of J. D. Vance, you won’t be surprised since the Vice-President has written the foreword to this book.
Roberts’ pre-Heritage Foundation professional life was much more Chestertonian than Trumpian. He established a classical academy in Louisiana; he served as president of Wyoming Catholic College; he believes in the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and, therefore, in Chestertonian notions of distributism with its emphasis on local action and local control.
As such, he has long been fighting a war that he deems has long since been lost. That would be the culture war, a war that he now believes must be re-fought and finally won, since both politics and economics are “downstream” from culture.
Actually, as Roberts sees it, multiple wars must be simultaneously fought on multiple fronts. They must be fought both from the top down and the bottom up. Along the way and in the end it all comes down to a contest between the “Party of Destruction” (today’s Democratic party and its allies) and the “Party of Creation” (today’s Republican party and its allies).
To be sure, Roberts hopes that these will be political wars, and mostly peaceful political wars at that. But his rhetoric is often harsh. And no doubt this is so, because he is convinced that the times demand it. That said, Roberts rightly contends that the times also demand a renewed sense of piety and a deep sense of gratitude, not to mention a good dose of prudence.
Still, the Party of Creation must itself be a destroyer, since it must first destroy the ideas and edifice, both institutional and ideological, of the Party of Destruction. And “destroy” is a frequent verb of choice, no doubt because Roberts wants to call attention to the seriousness of the situation rather than to call readers to the barricades.
In any case, the title of the book accurately captures Roberts’ major point. We are not just at a revolutionary moment, but at a moment reminiscent of the original American revolution. The Uniparty is a stand-in for King George and Lord North. Led by a globalist-minded elite, it is at best indifferent about, if not openly hostile to, middle and working class America.
Borrowing from both James Burnham and Joseph Schumpeter, Roberts applies their insights to the current American situation. Burnham’s “managerial revolution” has triumphed. Rooted entrepreneurs have given way to rootless managers. And Schumpeter’s prediction that the modern corporation would gradually lead to the rise and entrenchment of the hybrid version of capitalism and socialism has essentially been realized.
As a result, the Washington of 2025 has become the London of 1776. And the corrupt leaders of the lone British East India Company have been replaced by multiple and much more powerful managerially-minded, globalist-inclined elitists who are equally corrupt and perhaps even further removed from the great mass of their American subjects.
The situation may be dire, but Kevin Roberts sees the “dawn’s early light.” He also sees the need for what amounts to a second American revolution. Will it be a peaceful revolution? He certainly hopes so, but no one knows. Roberts only knows that there is a great need for fundamental change, change that will result in the downfall, if not destruction, of institutions that buttress the corrupt Uniparty.
If the book’s title helps Roberts make one of his major points, the subtitle misses the other of Roberts’ major points. “Taking back Washington” is only part of what must be done to save America. Taking back America must occur as well. And this must be done by any number of people toiling at the grass roots level.
Kevin Roberts surely knows this, both because he has worked to do just that and because he has written this book to urge just that. He also wants his readers to know that their action is needed, because the rot is deep indeed. No matter the topic or the problem, the phrase “it’s worse than you think” is repeated much more than once.
Nonetheless, despite the general situation–and despite his own occasionally harsh, even inflammatory, rhetoric–Kevin Roberts remains optimistic. His best case scenario is the gradual coming into being of something akin to a reverse uniparty, meaning an operation that will restore the promise and spirit of the original American Revolution without the necessity of a violent revolution.
Matters of fire and matters of the spirit are crucial for Kevin Roberts. Metaphorically speaking, a slow burn is necessary to renew the spirit of America and rekindle the “fire of liberty,” as Washington himself put it.
But fire alone will not do it. Since our problems are spiritual, writes Roberts, they will “require a spiritual solution.” Then he promptly adds, “this is an empirical statement.” After all, the first enemy we Americans–or anyone–must face is always ”within ourselves.”
Still, Roberts’ basic optimism cannot be over-emphasized. “We’re going to win,” he believes, because the vision of the Uniparty is “at odds with reality.” His vision of a restoration may be extreme, but it is tied to reality, not ideology. Just as the first American revolution was a conservative restoration, so will the second American revolution follow a similar path. To borrow slightly from Barry Goldwater, extremism in pursuit of an ideologically-driven heaven on earth is a vice that is doomed to defeat or despotism or both, while extremism in pursuit of American reality, the American spirit, and the American past is a virtue. And it will remain a virtue, whether it is defeated or not.
If Kevin Roberts is right, Tom Paine was wrong. The motto on the back of the Great Seal of the United States translates as “a new order of the ages.” Paine translated that into “the birthday of a new world.” But the Founders had a different idea, as does the president of the Heritage Foundation, namely that it was time then, as it is time now, for the sort of civilizational renewal that is “in the natural order of things.” If such a renewal is extreme, so be it, especially since it is so vitally necessary.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is “Francis Scott Key standing on boat, with right arm stretched out toward the United States flag flying over Fort McHenry, Baltimore, Maryland” (1913), by Edward Percy Moran, and is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
