>> I'm Margaret Hoover.

What does it mean to be a Conservative in the age of Trump?

Today on "Firing Line."

♪♪ >> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... >> Welcome to "Firing Line," where we aim to renew the tradition of William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" for a new generation.

For a longtime admirers of the program, rest assured I plan to honor the high standards Buckley set and will never compromise content for cleverness.

Now, throughout "Firing Line's" 33-year history, this program's host would evaluate the state of the modern American Conservative movement, its progress, its pitfalls, its successes, and now, in 2018, its survivors and casualties.

Today, my guest will join that tradition.

Ohio's 69th governor John Kasich is every Liberal's favorite Conservative and every Conservative's never-Trumper.

>> [ Laughs ] >> He came to Washington amidst Reagan's Conservative revolution and culminated his 18 years in Congress in the Gingrich revolution.

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, he worked across the aisle to balance the budget and reform welfare.

Some have said he got out of Congress when the going was good.

And as governor of Ohio, he claims the Conservative successes of cutting income taxes and balancing budgets, which helped him win re-election with nearly 64% of the vote.

A former television host -- I'll be asking him for notes in a minute here.

A Wall Street banker, a son of a postman, two-time presidential candidate.

And you know what they say about the third time.

He'll be stepping down next year and promises me he will not go quietly into the night.

Thank you for being on "Firing Line" to reflect on the Conservative movement at this moment in history, Governor Kasich.

What does Conservative mean to you now?

>> Well, what it's always meant, which is government as a last resort, not as a first resort, but government is necessary at times.

And I've never really kind of been an ideologue.

I've always operated on the basis of what makes common sense to me.

But I really became a Republican -- and I guess a Conservative, you know -- from the standpoint of I don't like standing in lines.

I don't like big institutions getting in my way, whether it is Big Government or Big Business or Big anything, 'cause I like to just -- I like to be a free bird.

And so that is really the reason why I'm a Conservative.

And what does it mean today?

It means, again, government is the last resort for me, as I'm the governor.

You know, it's different.

When you're a congressman, you know, that's just a -- That's a good job.

And I actually operated, in many respects, as a kind of a C.E.O.

when I ran the Budget Committee, 'cause I fought to balance the budget for 10 years of my life.

But as the governor of the state, that's where you really set the policy.

>> When you came to Washington, the debt was -- No, when you balanced the budget -- When you balanced the budget, in 1996, 1997, the debt was around $5 trillion.

>> Heading down, too.

>> Yeah.

>> Heading down.

We actually paid down some of the publicly held debt.

>> Projected in 2028 to be much higher.

>> So the debt is skyrocketing.

And, Margaret, the debt is gonna choke us.

It's gonna choke our children.

There's no question about it.

>> I mean, you have, in Ohio, a balanced-budget amendment that's mandated by law.

>> Yeah.

>> Hypothetically speaking, if you were President Kasich... >> Yeah.

>> ...would you support a federal balanced-budget amendment?

>> Absolutely.

Absolutely.

And I've been pushing it, traveling the country for it.

You want to hear the weirdest thing?

>> Yes.

>> I have told legislators all over the country that we need to have a balanced-budget requirement.

Okay, guess who fights it.

Liberals, who want to keep spending money, and Conservatives who say, "Oh, no, no, no.

If we go to some kind of a convention, then all hell is gonna break loose, and people are gonna be breaking into our homes, taking our furniture, and stealing our guns.

It's been the Right and the Left that has prevented us from imposing a discipline on the Congress in the United States.

>> Well, let's talk about the criticism from Conservatives about the balanced-budget amendment, 'cause their concern is spending is going to to keep going up.

And the balanced-budget amendment wouldn't prevent -- wouldn't actually attack the undermining structural problems.

Tell me why they're wrong.

>> Well, they're wrong because let's impose some discipline.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Let's put some discipline on there.

That doesn't mean you have to have tax increases.

And if they want to write in there that you don't have a tax increase, I'm cool with that.

But I am suggesting to you -- I know this, Margaret, that the Right Wing, the yellers and the screams -- God bless 'em -- are the ones that are saying, "We can't do that," 'cause the convention or whatever it is would get out of control.

And we've actually had red states -- I believe -- red states that have actually repealed their efforts to require.

But without forcing a restriction or a discipline on the Congress, they're just gonna keep spending.

You know why?

Because politicians want to be popular.

You're never popular when you say "no," in the short run.

In the long run, people admire you.

>> So, has fiscal conservatism, as a tenet of the Conservative movement changed?

>> Margaret, I think that what is happening is that this "Conservative business" -- this is like, "I have to do everything I can to appeal to a base.

There's no sort of ideology or philosophy.

This is all about electoral politics.

So, you know, it's just -- So, now they're expanding Medicaid and said, "Oh, well, we're gonna have a work requirement."

I mean, it's just baloney.

It's a fig leaf.

The fact is that people are too worried about their base.

They're too worried about getting people upset.

Why are you in this business?

If you're not willing to take some heat -- And, look, leaders have to walk a lonely road.

>> Yeah.

>> And if you're not willing to walk a lonely road, you're not gonna be a very good leader.

And you can't pay attention to the polls.

You know why?

They love you on Monday, they hate you on Tuesday, and they love you on Wednesday.

You know, you've just got to -- You've got to look in the mirror and say, "What did the Lord give me to do with my life?

And what am I supposed to do?"

And, by the way, Margaret, one of the biggest things that has not surprised me, but has felt very good to me is -- I have talked about the power of faith.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And I've talked about it at a Google Conference with people from the West Coast.

I talked about it in Europe.

I talked about it at Harvard.

And what I am finding, in an era of so much confusion and discontent and division, is that people are willing to listen now.

And when I talk about faith -- And if you are an agnostic, if you are a humanist, I'm all with you, okay?

But I believe the Lord has planted, on our hearts, his character, his values.

And they're the values of caring and love and compassion and forgiveness and humility and all these things, all of which we screw up all the time.

But when we slow our lives down, we can get it right part of the time.

And that provides a road map for how we're supposed to behave.

>> How does this compassion -- Right?

I'm not gonna say compassionate conservatism.

What you're talking about is different.

You're talking about leading with the heart.

How does that -- >> With the brain.

At the brain, 'cause, look, as the governor, I'm not gonna be sloppy about stuff.

>> Right.

>> If things don't make sense, I'm not gonna do them.

>> Does that influence your political philosophy in some way, though?

I mean, how does that overlay with sort of the principles that have driven you?

>> You know, the funny thing about it is -- I've told people this.

And I don't want to take this the wrong way.

But I have found my job to be pretty easy.

And I'll tell you why.

The people that are working around me, many of whom have been around me for many, many years -- we just look at something and we say, "How do we fix it?"

>> Right.

>> And it's so easy that way, instead of saying, "Who's gonna yell and who's gonna vote against us?"

It's been an element of "let's just try to do the right thing."

Now, look, everybody's a little political, and I'm not -- >> You're not immune from that.

>> Of course I'm not immune from it.

I'm a knucklehead all the time.

But, by and large, the trajectory of what we have been doing in Ohio has been based on good, solid principle.

Government as a last resort, not as a first resort, but never no government.

That's just ridiculous.

>> But that seems, to me, to be the insight and the shift in the Conservative movement, right?

That there is a space for government in a new way, a space for understanding the role of government in individuals's lives in a new way.

Isn't that -- That's what's -- >> Ronald Reagan is the most -- We have the most distorted view of Reagan.

Reagan was a guy that was practical.

I mean, he was once a Democrat.

Then he became a Republican.

>> Grew the government, did all these things.

Right.

Of course he did.

Absolutely.

>> You know, look -- >> But there's a space for government to have a role in individuals's lives, right?

>> Absolutely.

>> And it's understanding sort of the new parameters of, "What is that relationship?"

And that's a shift in conservatism from the time that William F. Buckley was espousing it at the beginning.

>> I'm not sure that most get this, Margaret.

I really don't.

>> I agree with you.

>> But I think it's the leading edge.

You know, I've always been kind of on the leading edge, thank goodness.

And the leading edge of this is -- you need to care a little bit more.

Now, if, all of a sudden, the federal government said they were gonna yank up the match on Medicaid expansion, they were gonna wreck my state, I withdraw.

>> Right.

>> I mean, that's your brain.

Your brain and your heart -- they have to work together.

>> That's it.

Listen, can we talk about trade?

>> Sure.

>> Another tenet of the Conservative movement -- trade.

We've always been for trade.

>> Well, you know, Conservatives are still for trade, so I don't know what these other people are.

>> They're calling themselves Conservatives.

When they're in Washington, they're against trade.

>> Yeah.

>> The one thing -- Let's start with from a point of common ground.

The one place you and the reigning conservatism in Washington agree on is that China's cheating.

>> Yeah.

And they steal on our intellectual property.

>> And they're stealing our intellectual property.

>> You know the interesting thing about that -- This will be controversial when people hear this.

So, I have a company and I go to China, and then they start stealing my stuff.

Like, Hello?!

What am I?

shocked?

>> Right.

>> And now I go running to the government, saying, "Can you fix this for me?"

I mean, where was the surprise?

>> Right.

>> But they are stealing intellectual property.

They're trying to dominate the world with their own economics.

>> So, how do we combat that lack of fair trade on their part, right?

I mean, you know, in 2000, you know, you were in Congress.

Well, you were on your way out.

But we allowed China to come into the World Trade Organization and to enter, along with other sophisticated, industrialized nations, presuming they would liberalize and play by the rules.

>> Right.

>> That didn't happen.

>> Yeah.

Well, it should be solidarity.

In other words, since they're in the WTO and since we're in there with a whole group of people that we used to call our great friends, now that we are dividing ourselves from them by saying, out of national security, some flimsy, goofy excuse, we're now gonna get into a battle with them and insult them and bring war on them.

Now we need them to help us.

In other words, the Western World, those that understand free markets must stand together against these kind of bullies.

And you can't just do it on a tit for tat, you know?

I mean, it has to be the West working together.

But when we divide ourselves or remove ourselves from the rest of the Western Hemisphere, you know, then it's harder to impose anything on China.

>> Right.

But if we had pursued the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we would have at least been able to work with -- >> Margaret, what a disaster that was.

Look, there are all these little fledgling countries out there in Asia.

They want us.

Believe it or not, the people watching this show, I know you're gonna find this hard to believe -- the world -- The Western World loves us.

I went to Munich at the invitation of one of my heroes, John McCain.

And I sat with Europeans.

And, you know, they might complain and yell and everything else.

They love us and they need us.

Over there in Asia, those little countries over there wanted us, and then we left.

It created a vacuum.

>> Well, they need us to help balance them in order to balance to keep China's -- >> Yes.

We didn't do it.

>> What do we do now?

We're imposing tariffs.

And some people in the Conservative base now see that as being tough on China, right?

They didn't understand the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a way of being tough on China, too.

>> Well, that might be, but, look, that was such -- That was not only an economic mistake, but it was a geopolitical mistake, a military mistake to withdraw, the same way that, you know, loose talk around military exercises in South Korea begins to undermine the confidence in our allies in Asia.

We don't want to leave Asia just to China.

We want to have our allies, particularly the Japanese, who are just in a panic.

Although, they're not gonna say it.

>> Well, we want to prevent a nuclear-arms race.

>> Yeah.

>> But -- I'm sorry.

>> So, what I'm suggesting is -- yes, you have to, through this organization, call China.

But, right now, we're not doing it.

So, what would you do?

You need to sit down and say, "These rules have to be abided by," because it's not just hurting us.

It's hurting our friends all over the world.

>> How do you enforce it if you're not -- >> Well, then maybe you act together.

But don't act unilaterally on this, act together.

See, and the other part of this is -- all politics is local.

Tip O'Neill was right.

So when China goes waltzing around the world, offering stuff to people, when we're not around, they take it.

>> Right.

>> You know, they take it, 'cause it helps them to be more popular at home.

>> So, what's happening at home in Ohio, when you have 55% of Ohio supporting the tariff on Chinese goods?

And then you have -- When you tell them that's gonna affect prices negatively, it goes down to 46.

In other words, people in Ohio like this trade regime -- >> Well, you know, a lot of times, people like sugar, too.

You know, it doesn't make it right.

>> Right.

So, how do you make the case for free trade?

>> Well, I think that it is a very hard case to make.

>> Yes.

>> I think that the party, the Conservative movement, stopped making that case.

But I think there's another element, and that is -- when countries cheat, we shouldn't have to go through some giant bureaucracy, which takes forever to resolve a trade case.

And then, at the end, if we win, the jobs are lost.

So we need an expedited process to be able to blow the whistle and to take action.

The problem with our allies is -- we used a flimsy excuse.

My concern about China -- I think the president is right.

There is a concern there.

But to just do this unilaterally on a back-and-forth, to me, is not the right way to proceed.

And in regard to the people, you know, and what they think, look, I have to lead.

>> Right.

>> And I have to tell people, "Here's the situation.

40 million Americans are working in trade-related occupations.

You're gonna hurt them.

Secondly, the majority of exporting comes from small and medium businesses.

Thirdly, your goods are not gonna be quality, 'cause we're gonna be keeping people out who were innovating and providing better things.

And it's gonna drive up the price for a consumer.

>> Right.

>> I mean, this is gonna hurt the middle class and the lower-income folks more than the rich.

The rich -- you know, the rich always survive, you know?

>> So, if you were running for governor again right now, you'd be making that case to Ohioans, that this trade -- >> No, I'd be making the case that -- If I were running for re-election for governor, I would be telling them that we're on the right path and we're gonna keep going the way we're going.

>> But that the trade wars are not helpful to -- >> Oh, I just -- Yeah, I mean, if somebody asked, but that's not, like, what they're thinking about, you know?

But I would make the case.

>> Right.

>> But I'm not gonna lead with that.

I'm gonna talk about the success we've had and why we need to continue to do it, which is what I'm hopeful that the people who come after me are going to do and not get sloppy, either with the spending, you know, raising taxes, over-regulating, destroying the JobsOhio private entity that's helpful.

Those are the things -- Oh, by the way, Margaret, workforce.

We have a tsunami coming at us going to disrupt so many jobs.

>> And you're working on automation.

>> And you know what, Margaret?

I mean, look, there are schools now that are doing better in my state, but this tsunami is a devastating thing.

And if you think we have the vision now, if we don't get on this, with business being responsible and the education institutions changing dramatically, we're gonna have a chaotic situation in this country that is just gonna be terrible.

>> You're one of the governors who's spent a lot of time thinking about that and how to attack it, policy-wise.

>> Hickenlooper is in Colorado, too.

I give him a lot of credit.

Hickenlooper.

You know, they say, "You're gonna run with Hickenlooper for president."

And I said, "Well, Hickenlooper-Kasich -- you couldn't fit it on two bumper stickers.

That's out of the question."

>> In that case, though, right?

>> I like John.

>> Right.

If you have a unity ticket, there's a real question about how that works.

But let's turn to politics, because the ideas you are espousing, in a lot of ways, one questions, who's been a lifelong Republican, rather the Republican Party can be the vessel for those ideas.

And I know you haven't left the party.

But you've said you want to bring the party home, right?

Home to those ideas.

>> Yeah.

>> Right?

How?

How do you do it?

>> I think I've got to talk about how it's worked.

You know, it's one thing to use rhetoric and to talk about what you're going to do.

It's another thing to show what you've done.

So, the president, by, you know, trying to fix coal and steel and all that stuff -- there haven't been jobs that have come from his activities yet.

He has nothing to prove that it works.

>> Right.

>> What we've done in Ohio is -- we can prove that it works, if anybody would pay attention.

And people are paying attention.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> We have the formula, and the formula is -- leave no one behind, but create the environment for prosperity.

Now, everything goes in cycles.

We know that.

"Firing Line" was here.

Then it was gone.

Now it's back.

You see?

So everything goes in cycles.

And I think that's what happens with economics.

But we know what works.

And when you know what works, you've got to do more of it.

>> Is there a constituency for those ideas in the Republican Party right now?

>> Oh, I don't think so.

You know, somebody said to me -- >> I mean, you're more popular with Democrats in Ohio than with Republicans, and you're very popular -- You're popular enough with Republicans, but you're more popular with Democrats.

>> Here is the problem with Republicans.

First of all, if the president does something I don't like, I criticize him, and if you're part of a tribe, you don't like that, okay?

>> So it's a tribal effect.

>> Yeah, that's part of it.

>> Not the policy.

>> No.

>> It's the tribalism?

>> Yes.

And the second issue is -- I did not endorse him and I did not go to our convention, and people are still mad at me for that.

You know what?

Why didn't I go?

I'm not going to a party where, you know, I can't behave, right?

I'm not positive about going to the party.

So, that's what's really aggravated people.

It's sort of this Trump thing.

>> But do you think it's -- >> But that's not overwhelming majority.

I'm still fine with Republicans.

Just there's some that really don't like me.

And you know what?

That's cool.

>> So, then if there's no constituency in the Republican Party, is there another vessel?

I mean, you mentioned Hickenlooper.

There is this sort of dalliance of, "Well, you know, do the Center-Left and the Center-Right have more in common than the extremes of their parties?"

>> Oh, there's no question.

>> Right?

And then, you know, is there a vehicle for that?

>> Well, I don't know.

That's a good question.

Is there a way in which -- Here's what I've said, Margaret.

Look, the extremes -- The extreme Left and the extreme Right -- they don't want to listen.

They just don't want to listen.

You can't argue with them.

So I believe the vast sea of people are in the middle.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And I don't mean squishy middle or weak middle, but they are seeking the truth, they're rational, and they are objective.

That's what I'm interested in -- pursuing people who are objective about things, who are seeking the truth, in a post-truth environment -- You know, that's the other thing.

We're in, like, a post-truth environment.

There would be people that would say that we didn't even sit together and do this interview.

"Oh, it was fake news."

You know, it's very dangerous.

Very dangerous.

What do I think will happen over time?

I think things will come around, but we've got to get into our hearts again and we've got to remember what those values are.

And it's not up to just you and me, but the folks that might be watching this, who could come out of what I sometimes think is a stupor on the Left and the Right -- a stupor -- and come out of it and go, "Oh, yeah, this isn't good for my kids or my grandchildren."

They need to think about what this means for the future of America.

And I don't want to believe that we are lost.

>> The ideas will come back around again.

And I'd like to play a clip from an early "Firing Line" with William F. Buckley, interviewing, of all people, his brother, who was a sitting senator in the state of New York.

Let's play that clip.

>> It was increasingly difficult, but is it or is it not a fair historical judgment, given the perspectives of this moment, to say that Mr. Nixon's policies were so confusing, as regards Conservative priorities, domestically and internationally, that he has left the Conservative movement scattered, slightly incoherent, and perhaps even emasculated?

>> I believe that's true, from this perspective and this perspective only, and that is he preempted.

He was regarded and described in the press and the editorials and so forth as "The Conservative."

>> Well, that's really -- Is that a flashback or are they talking about today?

>> Well, you talk about things coming around in circles.

These ideas do come back.

>> You know, I think that's right, Margaret.

The fact that I have a voice, I don't think, is because of me.

I think that -- Again, I think the Lord's been good to me and he's given me a position to be able to say some things that could help bring us together.

We need more people to do that.

And do I think it's growing?

Think about what's been happening with the "renegades" in Washington in the House, who are saying, "We need to do something about immigration, and we're not gonna take it anymore.

We're not asking permission from the president.

We're not asking permission from the leadership."

You're going to see people emerge.

And I'm looking at your board here and I see Frederick Douglass, you know, and what Frederick Douglass did and how there are little revolutions that get started.

Nothing happens overnight.

The little spark, you know, the little train that can.

>> They're laying the groundwork.

>> Yes.

>> They're laying the groundwork that might ignite.

>> And then, the other side of it is -- people want to know, "Are you gonna run for president?"

You know, I don't know, but here's what I'm starting to think about seriously.

It may be possible, with this unbelievable media we have, whether it's Facebook or whether it's -- >> PBS.

>> Oh, I love PBS.

I do.

One time, I tried to kill the funding for it, but I see the value in it.

>> But you've evolved as a Conservative, haven't you?

>> Yes.

I was small potatoes.

And, beyond that, it does a really good job.

But -- >> We're also privately funded here at "Firing Line."

You should know that.

You should know that.

>> I heard the beginning of it, yes.

But I guess what I'm suggesting is -- there may be a way to have a voice that is in a movement -- a movement -- that is unique.

You see, movements come when people in -- If you think about the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King didn't create it.

He was part of it and he emerged from it, because the "elites" or the normal leaders in the churches said, "We need to do this."

And he became the leader.

We need to be thinking about how we can take people who share these views that we have, whether they're Left or Right -- Doesn't matter.

Maybe we need to change all the political parties.

I don't know.

But to take them and bond together to create a movement that can change the way in which America is now operating and being described.

And you know what?

It's not just politics, either.

You know that.

I mean, it's everything.

It's the business community, sometimes, that acts without conscience.

We need to say, "Enough of that.

Time for us to rise again."

'Cause we're never gonna be measured, at the end of our lives, for how much money we raised or how much fame we had.

We're all equal in the eyes of the Lord.

We're all equal.

>> You're talking about a civic awakening.

>> Yeah, you know, I think that's right.

I think that that is right.

William Wilberforce did it over in Great Britain, and, you know, he gave his life for that.

He wore himself out fighting the slave trade.

But he brought manners.

Manners were just the right way to treat one another.

Yeah, I think that's part of it.

It is part of it.

And wouldn't that be a great thing to get America back on the track so our kids could be proud again of the way we do things as adults?

It would be great, wouldn't it?

>> It would be great.

It would be great.

John Kasich, thank you for coming to "Firing Line."

>> I hope you enjoyed it.

I'm the first guest.

>> You are the first national guest.

>> Thanks, Margaret.

>> Thank you very much, Governor Kasich.

>> So pleased.

>> Welcome to "Firing Line."

Take care.

♪♪ >> "Firing Line with Margaret Hoover" is made possible by... Corporate funding is provided by... ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ >> You're watching PBS.