There is no point reading The New York Times story about Paul Weyrich, who just died in his Northern Virginia home. It is askew. Paul's entry in Wikipedia has been updated today, but otherwise it is a tendentious liberal slander. It makes out Weyrich to be a "dominionist". That supposedly means he was a theocrat. He was not.
Paul Weyrich was a social issues conservative and one of the best in the past century. He thought religious people had always had a right to take part in politics and he encouraged them throughout his career to do so, and with vigor. In almost all other respects he was a conservative, too, but there was unusual passion in Paul for the dignity of the human being--he was a leading layman in the Melkite Catholic Church --and that gave particular force and color to his political views. He lacked the pure Libertarian's abstract attitude toward humanity. Like Burke, he saw the person in people.
Articles you will read about Paul Weyrich in coming days will recount his role in founding the Heritage Foundation with Ed Feulner and then the group he headed until his death, the Free Congress Foundation. In fact, he was a luminary among conservatives for decades. When the Reagan, then Bush 1 & 2 Administrations came along, he was a stern, unyielding presence quite prepared to admonish presidents against compromise. Yet, at the same time, behind the scenes he was promoting the careers of solid conservatives who sought Administration posts.
Sometime in the 70s he started a weekly luncheon meeting at Free Congress offices to allow conservative activists representing various organizations to hear confidential updates from White House and Congressional leaders and then to share amongst themselves the progress of their own agendas. Whereas the larger gatherings held by Grover Norquist, also on Wednesdays (a couple of hours before the "Weyrich lunch") would cover the legislative and political waterfront, Paul's meetings got down more to legislative details and had a stronger social issues orientation.
Paul was famous for his wit and his ascerbic style. You didn't want to be on the other side from him. Rhetorically, he didn't take prisoners. But, he had a reflective and studious side, I discovered, and once he came to trust someone he cut them some slack. Especially in the ten years since the onset of serious illness he drew deeply on the spirit of his faith. I asked him a couple of years ago what he had learned from his repeated hospitalizations. He looked almost stricken, for Paul was the last person to admit to any vulnerabilities. Then he replied quietly, "I've learned how kind people are, and often people who might surprise you." It was a moment of grace, surely.
We served together on the Amtrak Reform Council a few years back and, honestly, it was enjoyable service, as well as briefly productive of policy reform. Paul's uncompromising conservatism did not entirely extend to transportation, at least where his long love for rail transit was concerned. (Historically, transportation has had a public dimension for almost the entire life of the Republic, of course.) I think it was a relief for Paul to work on something that was not ideologically driven.
Many young people benefited from Paul Weyrich's patronage and encouragement over the years. He started many a good cause and kept at them. He was an innovator, a public policy entrepreneur. The modern conservative movement he helped establish and guide will find new leaders, but I doubt that any will equal Paul Weyrich's style and verve--and his deep devotion.
I did not know his family, but every thing I have heard leads me to think he was blessed at least as much at home as in his life's labors.
