Arthur Larson, an adviser to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, penned a book entitled ‘What We Are For’ in 1959. The gist of the work focused on what came to be known as “modern Republicanism.”

Larson’s work amounted to a plea for a party willing to compromise rather than destroy all that the New Deal had created. Right-wing Republicans desired to rollback Social Security and other government programs. Eisenhower admired Larson and criticized Republican Ultra-Conservatives. As he expressed to his brother Edgar, if the GOP tried to liquidate New Deal programs, “You would not hear of that party again.”

Larson pushed for a compassionate conservatism that would link government and business in a partnership for the common good. Along with Republican National Chairman Meade Alcorn, they lauded the government’s role in providing “preventative medicine” to guarantee economic stability, and they also pushed for international cooperation to provide security and peace.

Today, Larson would probably be disappointed in our current state of affairs. Partisanship is still rife within both parties. Project 2025 seeks to destroy what Larson called “compassionate conservatism.” All seem to jockey for position, reacting more to their opponents’ beliefs than honing their own views. Principled politicians such as Thomas Massie are discarded in favor of yes-men. Ken Martin’s Democratic National Committee is so mechanical in its approach that it refuses to discuss the purpose of politics.

This reminds us of John Raskob, who became DNC chair even though he remained a Republican. Later on, he would publish an article, “Everybody Ought to be Rich,” which derided government and encouraged investment. This was on the eve of the Great Crash of 1929. He had an “entrepreneurial spirit” which bordered on piracy; Larson and Eisenhower would not have approved.

Ike would decry this type of business-government collaboration in his January 19, 1961, military-industrial complex speech. By then, both parties indulged in a new great barbecue, taking advantage of government benefits for political gain.

Before there was Halliburton during George W. Bush’s Iraq gambit, there was Brown and Root (became Halliburton) during Lyndon B. Johnson’s Vietnam adventure. Partisanship has become an exercise of maneuvering, probing for advantage. George W. Bush, who allegedly became a compassionate Tory, nevertheless tried to “reform” Social Security in 2005. Democrats became defenders of this system, supporting the preservation of the safety net.

Americans are a patient lot, but they are flummoxed by a government that promises one thing and delivers another. No one voted for a ballroom or even the kind of active government pushed by Joe Biden. Republicans do not even produce a platform, and Democrats give you telegenic conventions without substance. Raskob would have been so proud.

Fun and games, tactical adjustments, and the advancement of an unprincipled political class, which mirrors the ethics of our present business elite, win at all costs, and let someone else foot the bill. It seems the “common good” is way down the priority list. Consultants and their clients reign supreme.

What the parties ought to be for is a government that promotes honesty and fair dealing. Americans do not ask for much and work hard. They want a caring government and not a superstate. The question is not economic or international; it is whether the Republic is honorable. The present vulgarity rampant in the nation’s politics is a by-product of rabid careerism and opportunistic plays disguised as “values.” Perhaps Eisenhower and Mr. Larson could provide a way out of the swamps and help us restore integrity and the liberty that flows from it.