A Platform For The Family

Editor's Note: What would cause a successful trial lawyer – with a solid chance to become the attorney general of Florida – to give it all up to lead a non-profit organization? Well, it helps that the non-profit is the Family Research Council, one of the most influential pro-family organizations in the nation. Ken Connor is currently “winding down” his law practice, and making his mark on the FRC, an organization that first gained national attention under the leadership of Gary Bauer. Connor was recently in Charlotte to raise money and awareness for the FRC, and Charlotte World Editor Warren Smith sat down with the self-proclaimed “night owl” late one evening, after his presentation to about 80 supporters in Charlotte's Tower Club.

Warren Smith: You just took over leadership of the FRC, taking the place of Gary Bauer. How do you feel about stepping into that role at this point? 

Ken Connor: Well, for a fellow who is small in physical stature, Gary left big shoes to fill. He's a brilliant advocate and insightful politician and I thought he did an extraordinary job in leading the Family Research Council. I was convinced to leave my own job and to pursue this role out of a great conviction that the platform for influencing public thought and ideas and issues was extraordinary and couldn't be duplicated in many political offices. So as a person who is passionate about cultural change, I was looking for a way to spend the rest of my of my work life, and after considering running for political office, I felt like the platform at FRC actually offered greater potential for changing the culture.

WS: You ran for governor in Florida, and you were seriously thinking of running for attorney general in Florida, and a lot of people thought you could have won that race. In many states the attorney general's job is a stepping stone to the governor's chair. It certainly worked that way in North Carolina for Mike Easley. But you really think being president of the FRC gives you a better chance to impact the culture?

KC: I really do. Otherwise I would not have taken it. The position of president at FRC offers a very broad platform to talk to policy makers, opinion leaders, media, and ordinary people. The range of issues is really extraordinary.

WS: I did want to talk more about those issues, but before we move on let's talk a bit about the FRC. Even though Gary Bauer was a great leader for many years, during the time he ran for president the FRC, at least from a financial point of view, went into a bit of a decline. From 1998 to last year income was off a good bit. Has that affected what the organization is able to do, and what are you doing to address that?

KC: You're right about the change in income. FRC was without a public leader for two years. I think the amazing thing is that it sustained at the high level that it did, which shows first of all excellent internal leadership and a commitment to mission and a recognition on the part of its donor base that FRC was carrying out its mission. This has been a very tough year for all non-profit organizations, but at FRC we are actually ahead of last year, while some very fine organizations who are performing important work are behind their previous fiscal year. So we feel fortunate that we are ahead. We are not at the level we want to be or expect to be, but we feel like we are making progress.

WS: You said tonight, and I get a sense from watching other Christian groups, that we do a pretty good job saying what we are against, but not so good a job at articulating what we are for. What are you doing to articulate a positive vision for the FRC.

KC: That is accurate. But in fairness, in the past with the Clinton administration many conservatives had to stand up against things they were opposed to. Now in Washington we have an administration that is sympathetic to the family. Sympathetic to the sanctity of life. And what we want to do is cast a vision for America that will lift people and point them to transcendent truth and propel them to make personal sacrifices for the greater good and so we are increasingly talking about what we are for because we are in an environment that permits us to do that, and we haven't been in that environment for some time. We want to help President Bush cast a vision for America that will inspire and motivate people to reclaim that vision of being the shining city on a hill that President Reagan talked about.

WS: There is one issue I want to discuss and that is the embryonic stem cell issue. Bush has said he will issue a statement or policy by September. Even though he brings strong pro-life credentials, and I think he has the confidence of many in the pro-life community, many are wondering what is taking him so long to get to a decision.

KC: Well, first of all, I think the president is a person of good faith and I think he wants to take into account a variety of different views. One thing that was clear during the campaign and after the campaign: the president stated unequivocally his opposition to research that involved the destruction of living human embryos. He's on the record on that.

Now I presume that the president is going to be faithful to his word, and is going to take the position as President Bush that he took as Candidate Bush. One of the things I learned from high ranking people in the White House is this: they say if the president said it during the campaign, you can go to the bank on it. So I think this is not only of great importance from a public policy stand point, it's a matter of great importance from an integrity standpoint.

WS: He doesn't want this to be a “read my lips no new taxes” kind of thing.

KC: It would be a devastating thing for him to repeat that mistake. It cost his father the presidency. I am convinced that it will cost him the presidency, as well. So at the end of the day I think the president is going to come down in accordance with his original position. I do think he wants to appear, and genuinely is anxious, to hear from all sides.  

WS: To step back for a moment from this issue, a lot of conservatives are heartened that Bush, who many consider to be a pro-life conservative, is in the White House. On the other hand, it is sometimes good for organizations like FRC to have a devil -- so to speak -- to fight against. Now that conservatives are in the White House, is the movement going to get mushy and move to the middle to keep power, or are organizations like the FRC going to press their agenda even harder?

KC: My hope is that this is the dawn of a new era -- the post Clinton era -- where public policy will reflect an appreciation for the role of the family. The danger is that conservatives will presume that because we won the election that the battle is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's only the beginning. The danger is that we become apathetic, with a president in the White house, thinking the situation is well in hand.

The beachhead that Bush has established with his election is very much in jeopardy. The shift of power in the Senate reflects that. There are many who think the president lacks the verbal fluency to make the case. I don't think that is true. He has demonstrated through his acceptance speech at the convention, and through his state of the union of speech, that he has the capacity to cast a vision and to inspire people. He has a phenomenal speech writer. But the biggest asset he has going for him is that he has regarded by most Americans as a man of great integrity and sincerity and the public likes him. He is able to use good humor to his advantage. I think because of his winsomeness and his sincerity and genuineness he can deal with some difficult issues in a thoughtful way, a way which doesn't scare the public. No one can call Bush a radical. He isn't a flamer. He can talk about issues like abortion, and hold children in his arms, and say, “I believe that adoption is a loving alternative to abortion and I want to protect children like this and want them to feel welcomed in our society,” and people will believe it.

WS: There is any old saying that in a democracy we get the leaders that we deserve, and even if Bush does his part I guess the other side to that question is what about the American people? Even if Bush holds firm, we see that an America that is wishy washy on a lot of these issues as well. An America where folks who go to evangelical churches have higher rates of divorce than those who do not. How much will we the people expect out of Bush even if he is up to that responsibility of leadership?

KC: I am an optimist when it comes to the capacity of the American people to respond to leadership. Based on Reagan's leadership and on our response in World War I and II, based on scarifies our founding fathers were willing to make, I think that the flame can be nurtured and cultivated in the hearts of the American people. But it takes vision. On Capitol Hill today there are any number of Bible studies that have popped up since Bush became president. People have become more public regarding their faith than they were during the Clinton administration. They feel there's an environment that appreciates and fosters those kinds of behaviors.

Besides, in the final analysis, as one of our leaders said, duty is ours, consequences are God's.

WS: The FRC and your role as the leader requires that you be media savvy, as you're talking to the media frequently. And I know you know Marvin Olasky's book “Prodigal Press,” which documents the anti-Christian bias of the news media. How do you think these changes in Washington have affected the secular press?

KC: I think that the conservatives and Christians have low expectations of the media, and the media doesn't disappoint them. But too often we treat members of the secular press as adversaries and wonder why we get lousy coverage. I suppose I would attribute to media a better motive than some of my colleagues would. I see them as folks who operate under tremendous time pressures, who believe they have an obligation to present a balanced view, and who -- if we will stop stiff arming and are willing to listen a bit – will allow us to get our point of view out. I really don't have any complaints in the way the media treated us or the FRC. There clearly exist within the mainstream media a bias. But I found in Florida that if you treat media people as people trying to do a job and you worked to help them do that job, it's amazing the positive response you get, and I found that to be true in Washington, too.

WS: You articulated areas of emphasis that the FRC will address in the coming years.

KC: The sanctity of life, the protection of marriage, the protection of religious liberty, the increased role of parents in education decision making, and family tax relief -- and there are subtexts under each of those headings.

WS: Why those five? Because because they form an umbrella under which a lot of things can be talked about, or because they are leverage points?

KC: Well, both. We see life as the foundation to all other rights. No other rights can exist without the right to life, and so unless we protect the right to life the right to privacy, the right to freedom of religion, and expression, of assembly -- those are booted. So protecting the right to life is foundational.

Because the marriage based family is the cornerstone of society and virtue, we believe protecting marriage, defending the family, is critical. Family tax relief is linked to the defense of marriage. As for the others, we have seen profound hostility, especially in the judiciary, to the free exercise religion in public places. We think that is wrong and we like to see an elimination of hostility by government toward the free exercise of religion.

And our educational system has been a flop. The gap between poor children and rich children, the learning gap, is growing. Our deficiencies relative to the rest of the world in math and science continue to widen. Our current system is failing our children. We think nobody has a greater stake in educational success than parents, so we think they ought to have a greater role.

WS: To focus a bit on the education issue. When I was in college – more than 20 years ago -- I worked briefly for a Democratic senator who was opposed to the creation of the Department of Education, and today we have a Republican president who is increasing money to the Department of Education. It seems that the center has shifted on this issue.

KC: No question about that. Bush ran as the education president. He started out with a modest but a lot laudable set of education goals. My own fear and concern is that in the interest of the of declaring a political victory the president is willing to suffer a huge defeat of his original plan, and to embrace proposals that really do little more than throw more money after the same failed practices, and so I have been profoundly disappointed at his educational agenda.

WS: What do you see as the next “big thing” coming from Washington. What I mean by that is that a year ago no one was really talking about faith based initiatives, and now all of a sudden everyone is talking about them. What is next?

KC: What is next in terms of what will have a profound impact on the country is judicial confirmations. The president has to appoint strict constructions who will interpret the constitution, not make law from the bench. There will be a huge fight, because the liberals love to short circuit the democratic process or get a single judge or a small number of judges on a panel to affirm their political agenda. So what's next is a huge battle for the direction of the Supreme Court and indeed the whole federal judiciary. My hope and prayer is that the president is faithful to his pledge and is willing to stand in the gap and fight for what he believes. The least accountable branch of government was never intended to be the chief architect of policy, but because the congress has abdicated its own role and has refused to rein in a runway judiciary, the judiciary has because the most equal of all branches of government. That's what's next.