WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks today at the American Enterprise Institute’s ‘Solutions for The Middle Class: The New Conservative Policy Thinking’ conference:

“It’s great to be here, especially under present circumstances. If things had turned out differently in Kentucky Tuesday, this could have been a fairly awkward presentation.

“I want to start by thanking Arthur and AEI for hosting us and for co-sponsoring today’s conference, as well as our other co-sponsors: National Affairs, and the YG Network.

“Earlier this year, Senate Republicans hosted a number of today’s panelists at our annual retreat, so in some sense I view today as the continuation of a conversation that’s already ongoing — a conversation about our shared commitment to the urgent task of alleviating the burdens of the working poor and the American middle class.

“Thank you for this opportunity to share a few brief observations of my own on the role that a Republican-led Senate might play in making this important goal a reality.

“Broadly speaking, I think there are two basic arguments hovering over us this morning.

“The first argument is that the various policy proposals we now commonly refer to as ‘reform conservatism’ represent a good initial answer to the question of how government can be used to help, not hurt, working Americans across the country whose wages have remained stubbornly flat throughout the Obama era, even as the cost of everything from college tuition to health care continues to rise.

“Many of these Americans have come to feel that their government is now working against them, not for them. And reform conservatism is animated in large part by a desire to prove that at least one party in Washington remains determined to change that and to show in the process that today's Republican Party has something to offer these Americans beyond a mere rejection of what the other side is selling.

“After all, the Constitution isn’t merely a limiting document, though it is that. It is also meant to enable action, to facilitate commerce, mobility, and greater opportunity — to enrich our lives and our society as the nation grows and develops. This is something two of my Kentucky forebears, Abraham Lincoln and Henry Clay, well understood. And it’s well worth remembering even as we steadfastly reaffirm government’s proper limits.

“The second argument, repeated with great frequency by some of our panelists, is that embracing these various reform proposals and touting them on the campaign trail would go a long way toward alleviating the much-discussed electoral struggles of today’s Republican Party.

“So let me just say at the outset that I think there’s very little to dispute in either one of these claims.

“I think that if you were to ask any Republican in Washington which group of Americans stands to benefit most from the ideas and ideals of our party, they’d respond without hesitation that it’s the American middle class, and that any suggestion to the contrary is based on a cheap and dishonest caricature.

“And yet, I think it must also be admitted that in our rush to defend the American entrepreneur from the daily depredations of an administration that seems to view any profit-making enterprise with deep suspicion — that we have often lost sight of the fact that our average voter is not John Galt.

“It’s a good impulse, to be sure.

“But for most Americans, whose daily concerns revolve around aging parents, long commutes, shrinking budgets, and obscenely high tuition bills, these hymns to entrepreneurialism are, as a practical matter, largely irrelevant. And the audience for them is probably a lot smaller than we think.

“So I do think we’d do well as a party to get down to the basics. As Mona Charen recently put it, ‘Less talk of job creators and more talk of job-earners would be welcome.’

“Having said that, I think a politician’s personal appeal and overall electability continue to be as potent a force in American politics as a well-considered policy platform. But that’s a larger conversation, and one we’ll leave for another day.

“Today isn’t primarily about tactics. It’s about our shared commitment to making life a little easier for the working poor and for the broad American middle class through concrete policies. And it’s about recognizing how fortunate we are as a party to have so many thoughtful and creative women and men contributing their energies and talents to this vitally important movement of ideas.

“Yuval Levin often speaks about the importance of gratitude. And it is with no little gratitude that I want to acknowledge this morning the tremendous work that so many of you have done in preparing us for the day when the American people realize — once again — that liberalism doesn't work and Republicans are once again driving the policy debate in Washington.

“Thanks to you and to others, we will be well-armed when that happy day finally arrives.

“I'm proud that several members of my conference have thrown themselves into this movement with enthusiasm. I’m grateful for their efforts as well. James Madison once said that the U.S. Constitution was the work of ‘many heads and many hands.’ And the same could justly be said of this great collective effort to update our party’s ideas consistent with its longstanding principles of upward mobility, shared responsibility for the weak, and a strong but limited central government.

“For my part, I’ve pressed for legislation in recent months that addresses a variety of concerns among the voters in my state.

“The Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act, which I introduced with Senator Ayotte, would allow working mothers to enter into a voluntary agreement with their employer whereby they would be able bank overtime compensation in the form of time-off rather than more pay.

“The Expanding Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act would provide more and better educational choices to families who’ve made it very clear to me how disappointed they are in their current options — and how frustrated they are with teachers unions that block any progress.

”And then there’s the National Right to Work Act, a bill I’ve co-sponsored with Senator Paul, which would eliminate a federal rule that requires the employees of certain companies to join a union or to pay union dues whether they want to or not. Lifting this rule would vastly increase job opportunities in my state for women and men who want work but can’t find it, especially in the area of manufacturing.

“These are just a few ideas.

“Senators Lee and Rubio and Scott and Paul, among others, have outlined numerous other specific proposals with similar goals in mind. We won’t all agree of course on the particulars of every proposal, and we may disagree on the political wisdom of pursuing various proposals at particular times and places — and that’s okay. The idea isn’t to agree on everything. It’s to have a serious debate that leads to good, durable results.

“That debate is already underway.

“I believe it is a powerful sign of our strength and vitality as a party.

“And it points to an inherent advantage we have always had over Democrats in the battle of ideas.

“As a coalition party, today’s Democrats simply don’t have room to innovate or to keep pace with the times. That’s why they seem to have been pushing the same ideas for more than a century now. They’re captive to a handful of interest groups that just won’t allow them to think big or innovatively.

“Occasionally they’ll try to make a virtue of necessity by casting their commitment to a century-old agenda as a sign of their doggedness. But the truth is they’re trapped.

“So it's been left to us to fill in the gaps.

“In a recent interview with Stephen Colbert, George Will noted that ‘liking things that are old’ doesn’t make you a conservative; it makes you a liberal. His point wasn’t to suggest that conservatives have given up on preserving institutions that are working as they should. It was to highlight how often liberals won’t even discuss updating or reforming those that aren’t.

“Liberals will always react to such a claim, of course, with the swift construction of a straw man. Just hint at the need to update an existing program and they’ll claim it’s a camel’s nose under the tent, or a dog whistle, or a slippery slope, or whatever other metaphor they can think of to deflect a serious debate.

“And that is why, as people who care deeply about the future of our country, we must never tire of pointing out that the only party that has any credibility when it comes to preserving what is good about government — is ours. Because we’re the only ones who’ve actually shown an interest in really doing so

“Nor should we ever tire of repeating, as Arthur often reminds us, that the people who stand to suffer most from the collapse of our most necessary or vital programs are the very people they were originally intended to help — the poor and the marginalized.

“Many articles have been written and many panels convened on the question of whether the ambitious social goals that LBJ first outlined in that famous speech in Ann Arbor 50 years ago have, on balance, been helped or hindered by the multitude of initiatives that it spurred. It’s a complex question, and I don’t intend to add anything new to that particular debate today.

“But in closing, I would like to leave you with two thoughts about the prospects of your own labors.

“First, I think it’s important to note that the fate of any reform agenda depends not just on the composition of the Senate but also the style of the person who leads it.

“LBJ’s reign as Senate Majority Leader offers history a rather vivid illustration of this — and so does Harry Reid’s.

“Limiting my comments to the latter, I don’t mind saying that Senator Reid has done tremendous damage to the Senate.

“By arrogating to himself powers that have traditionally resided with committees and individual members, he’s turned the Senate into a graveyard for good ideas and serious, open debate. His propensity to block amendments, even on his own side, has prevented for years the organic development of policy that has always characterized the Senate at its best.

“He has muzzled the people’s representatives, and through them, the people themselves.

“He has opted for secrecy over transparency by moving the bill-writing process from the Senate floor to his conference room, most notoriously in the drafting of Obamacare.

“And I don’t need to tell any of you what he has done to the spirit of comity and respect that the public has every right to expect from their leaders.

“If Republicans were fortunate enough to reclaim the Majority in November, all of this would change.

“A Senate Majority under my leadership would break sharply from the practices of the Reid era in favor of a far more free-wheeling approach to problem solving.

“I would work to restore its traditional role as a place where good ideas are generated, debated and voted upon. We’d fire up the committee process.

“We’d work longer days and weeks, using the clock to force consensus.

“And finally, in marked contrast to the Reid era, we would allow an open amendment process — ensuring senators on both sides a chance to weigh in on legislation and alleviating the frustration that inevitably results when they can’t.

“This new approach would lead to its own frustrations.

“Members who have good ideas of their own may not like going through the committee process or allowing amendments to their otherwise pristine proposals. But after castigating Senator Reid for crowding out the rest of us and shielding his actions from public view, we certainly can’t then turn around and do the same ourselves.

“The fact is, the greatest way to ensure transparency is to reinvigorate the committees and to restore what we refer to in the Senate as regular order.

“And the greatest way to ensure stability in our laws is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate in some way in their passage.

“So I think there’s no question that a Republican Senate would be a far more hospitable place for the consideration of the kind of creative policy proposals that you’ve all been writing and thinking about.

“But I would remind you that the Senate is by nature, and design, an extremely frustrating institution.

“Regardless of what happens in November, Barack Obama will still be president for two more years. And legislation of any significance in the Senate at least will still require 60 votes.

“This isn’t something Lyndon Johnson had to worry about, given the historic majorities that his party commanded in both the House and Senate following the 1964 election.

“But we will, regardless of what happens in November, because while it’s nice to imagine large Republican majorities, we certainly can’t plan on it.

“In the end, what this means is that our greatest weapon, today, as always, is the power of persuasion — and the eloquent testimony of good results.

“Thank you for the work you have already done in that necessary work of persuasion. It is my fervent hope that soon enough the American people will give us a chance to put some of your good work to the political and legislative test, and enable us to truly deliver for the American middle class.”