Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?

National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

he news this summer has been rather bleak for conservatives. The Supreme Court first decided to write "diversity" into the Constitution. A few days later, it issued a ruling on sodomy laws that called into question its willingness to tolerate any state laws based on traditional understandings of sexual morality. In neither case was there much pretense that the Court was merely following the law. At this point it takes real blindness to deny that the Court rules us and, on emotionally charged policy issues, rules us in accord with liberal sensibilities. And while the Court issued its edicts and the rest of the world adjusted, a huge prescription-drug bill made its way through Congress. That bill will add at least $400 billion to federal spending over the next ten years, and it comes on top of already gargantuan spending increases over the last five years. The fact that a pro-growth tax cut is going into effect this summer hardly compensates for these developments — especially since expanding entitlements threaten to exert upward pressure on tax rates in the future.

Republicans have been complicit in each of these debacles. Both the affirmative-action and sodomy decisions were written by Reagan appointees. President Bush actually cheered the affirmative-action decision for recognizing the value of "diversity." Bush has requested spending increases, and not just for defense and homeland security. He has failed to veto spending increases that went beyond his requests. But let it not be said that the president has led his party astray. Many congressional Republicans have strayed even more enthusiastically. Bush originally wanted to condition prescription-drug benefits on seniors' joining reformed, less expensive health plans. When the idea was raised, House Speaker Denny Hastert called it "inhumane." Congressional appropriators — the people who write the spending bills — have been known to boast that they would beat the president if ever he dared to veto one of their products.

We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration. We supported him nonetheless in the hope that he would strengthen our defense posture, appoint originalist judges, liberalize trade, reduce tax rates, reform entitlements, take modest steps toward school choice. Progress on these fronts would be worth backsliding elsewhere. We have been largely impressed with Bush's record on national security, on judicial appointments (although the big test of a Supreme Court vacancy will apparently not occur during this term), and on taxes. On the other issues he has so far been unable to deliver.

It is not Bush's fault that Democrats oppose entitlement reform, or that the public wants it less than it wants a new entitlement to prescription drugs. He should, however, have used the veto more effectively to restrain spending. Had he vetoed the farm bill, for example, Congress would have sent him a better one. We need presidential leadership on issues other than war and taxes. Instead we are getting the first full presidential term to go without a veto since John Quincy Adams. Bush's advisers may worry that for Bush to veto the bills of a Republican Congress would muddle party distinctions for voters. But this dilemma results from a failure of imagination. Why must the House Republican leadership always maintain control of the floor? When Democrats and liberal Republicans have the votes to pass a bill, sometimes it would be better to let them do so, and then have the president veto it. The alternative — cobbling together some lite version of a liberal bill in order to eke out a congressional majority — is what really makes it hard to press the case against big-spending Democrats.

The defeats on racial preferences, gay rights, and the role of the courts generally reflect a conservative political failure that predates this administration. Republican politicians have never been comfortable talking about moral or race-related issues, and have been eager to slough off these responsibilities to the courts. Their silence is not, however, only an abdication of responsibility; it is also politically foolish. Opposition to racial preferences and gay marriage is popular in every state of the Union. And if the courts are going to block social conservatives from ever achieving legislative victories — and Republicans will not even try to do anything about it — social conservatives may well conclude that there is no point to participating in normal politics. There goes the Republican majority.

To get back on track will require effort from President Bush, congressional Republicans, and conservatives generally. Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench — a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. But a mere statute can make the point that Congress controls the federal judiciary's purview. Congressman Todd Akin's bill to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over the Pledge of Allegiance has the votes to pass the House, and has a powerful Senate sponsor in Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch. It should be high on the Republican agenda.

Conservatives, finally, have to find ways to work with the Republicans — their fortunes are linked — while also working on them. The Pennsylvania Senate primary offers a choice between a candidate who is conservative on both economics and social issues, Pat Toomey, and one who is conservative on neither, the incumbent, Arlen Specter. The White House and the party establishment has rallied behind Specter. But President Bush's goals would be better served by a Senator Toomey. And as recent events underscore, this is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment.

[ApesForEvolution]

No, there you are right (for the most part).

However, the only thing that seems to move the GOP is a loss of power. The more the GOP gets, the quicker they are to move left.

But you never, ever recognize (in this forum) how quickly the GOP is to adopt socialist policy and re-spin it as their own, moving the nation slowly to the left from a legislative viewpoint and further entrenching the sheeple's insecurity about boldly believing that we are indeed to be governed within Constitutional bounds.

[Jim Robinson]

From your FR profile page:

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2


"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

Mother Teresa (Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94)

"One dark day in January of 1973, SATAN donned judicial robes! Robes flowing, gavel in hand, he swept onto the floor of the United States Supreme Court. He presided over the most atrocious travesty of justice that ever took place, and he declared - we now have the 'right' to murder the most innocent, in what should be the safest place in the universe for them! And since then, tens of millions of babes have been assassinated in their own mothers' wombs! The darkness indeed grows deeper." Fr. John Corapi S.O.L.T.




Do you honestly believe that the Democrats will appoint anything but more liberal activist judges?

[Jim Robinson]

C'mon. How many years out of the last 100 have the Republicans been in control of all three branches of government? How many years have the Democrats been in effective control?

[fatima]

Jim,They won't .The president is popular and we will go forward.

[ApesForEvolution]

Are you saying that Republicans have control of the judicial branch of government?

Do you think that the probable nomination of WH counsel Alberto is a good thing?

[Jim Robinson]

"Are you saying that Republicans have control of the judicial branch of government?"

No. But they (almost) have control of the mechanism to replace the liberal judiciary with conservatives. That is, if we don't throw it away.

I don't know on Alberto.

[DPB101]

If we allow the Democrats to select the next several rounds of Supreme Court picks, then we've guaranteed that they'll ALL be liberals. FDR's dream court.

Probably worse. Even the liberals back then had some restraint. That's gone. The new crop of liberals believes the courts can decide anything. And should.

[Captainpaintball]

...Call. Visit. Write. Protest...recruit, train and support the best young conservative minds we can and to get them elected and moved up the ladder. There is no other possible way to turn this thing around...

The Republican party needs nothing less than a SAVIOR--A man of great intelligence, wit, popularity and charisma. He must have the courage to stand up to the enemy, confidence in himself and his Conservative values, and strong, unwavering character. He has to be 'clean' of scandal-with a "lilly white" past, and appealing enough to brigde the gaps of age, race, religion and sex. He must not be afraid to speak his mind...even if it means bad press or alienation from "squeaky wheels." His toughness, brashness, and "tell it like it is" demeanor makes guys vote for him because they want to be like him, and women vote for him because they want to be with him.

This man needs to be so pouplar, so respected, so appealing...other politicians will fall over each other just to be seen with him. His approval/disaproval of an issue can sway and influence votes and judicial nominations--no one will dare vote against him--and the ones that go along with him are smart enough to know where the action is... and he always votes his conscience--he is a "Principle over Party" guy that never advances the enemy's agenda whatsoever.

Unfortunately, right now the Republicans have no one that could even come close to the above descripton. (neither do the democrats, thank G-d) But maybe out of all the millions of talk radio listeners and freepers out there, there is one of these guys that can come out of nowhere and save the Republican party from our so-called leaders. I really think our best hope will be someone like the man I described above--someone who cut their teeth in the "information generation." The fuddy-duddys currently in office have failed us.

[nopardons]

No such person exists, nor has he EVER existed. Even Jesus, the Christ, in HIS earthly incarnation didn't fit your description.

Join the rest of us...over here in reality.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, until the Knight in Shining Armor makes the scene, I suggest we try to make do with mere mortals despite all their failings. Only, I hope the mortals elected uphold at least the mimimum Republican standards vs the evil abortionist/homosexual dogma of the Democrats.

[finnman69]

It seems like one party rule on the national level inevitably moves toward big government.

As opposed to the bloated socialist bureaucracys in Europe with multi party systems?

[finnman69]

Remember 1992 and the "jobless recovery" that proceeded that election?

Yes and I remember having that goofball leprechaun to thank for giving us 8 years of Semenstain and higher taxes.

FYI. Perot's old company EDS and his new company Perot Systems BOTH export hi-tech jobs to India from the US. In fact one of Perot Systems main services is to facilitate other companies to export more jobs via technology.

Whose the sucker?

[Sid Rich]

Good line.

[finnman69]

That's how I feel change is the most effective. I witnessed it firsthand here in Jersey when we bucked the party leadership in '01 and got Bret Schundler elected in the primary.

Unfortunately Schundler as well as Bill Simon lost, and lost big time. Which brings up another question, did they lose because of their messages or because of the way they ran their campaigns? I think a bit of both. Frankly, winning general elections in America is about energizing moderates and the middle base. Not the base. You energize the base to win primaries. Now, winning over the base is important, but normally to win the actual election you can't cater 100% to your base unless you want to lose. Reagan is one of the few exceptions to the rule, but he was a fantastic candidate.

The ONLY way you will see more conservative candidates move up through the GOP is working with the GOP, not against it.

[Matchett-PI]

"Third party. The two options you listed are both pro-abortion, social welfare spending, Clintonites" ~ BillyBoy

Critical thinkers don't focus on the *symptoms* if they want to solve a problem.

They focus on curing the underlying problem and then the symptoms will go away.

Does that make sense to you?

If it doesn't, then read no farther because what I'm about to write will not make sense to you either.

The underlying problem that needs to be *cured* are the hearts and minds of the people who vote for those who believe as they do (pro-abortion, social welfare spending, etc., etc.).

Focus your energy on them. Change their minds. Stop being side-tracked / distracted by the symptoms. Help cure the problem. Be constructive.

In the meantime, we must stand together, and refuse to allow *their choices for public office* to win at the ballot box.

*Their choices* will be "DemocRATS".

That's ALL you need to know to stop them IF and UNTIL they can be *persueded* to make better, less self-centered, choices on their own.

It is literally a matter of life and death which party we allow in power.

There is ONE PARTY that has a reputation, both here and abroad) for being weak on crime and against a strong national defense.

Do you think that the enemies of America, within America, will vote for GWB and other Republicans for the House and Senate in 2004, or any other time????

Do you think that the terrorists and the anti-war Marxist sympathizers won't pull out all the stops trying to put the DemocRATS back in power?

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote DemocRAT (even in local elections).

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to sit at home and not vote (even in local elections).

It is NOT SAFE for those who love freedom to vote for a third party candidate because the result will be a DemocRAT in the White House appeasing terrorists and other enemies of America again.

Bottom line?

Those who don't go all out to see to it that G.W.Bush is re-elected will be aiding and abetting America's enemies -- either indirectly, by not voting, or directly, by voting DemocRAT / Third Party.

Those who aid and abet America's enemies by allowing DemocRATS to get back in power will be the recipients of the contempt that they will so richly deserve.

[Matchett-PI]

BTTT!!! You nailed the bottom line in #234.

I liked it so much I posted it on my profile page!

[A Navy Vet]

"Those who don't go all out to see to it that G.W.Bush is re-elected will be aiding and abetting America's enemies -- either indirectly, by not voting, or directly, by voting DemocRAT / Third Party. Those who aid and abet America's enemies by allowing DemocRATS to get back in power will be the recipients of the contempt that they will so richly deserve."

That is over the top and extremely insulting to those people who vote their concience and not a political party.

[jmc813]

Unfortunately Schundler as well as Bill Simon lost, and lost big time. Which brings up another question, did they lose because of their messages or because of the way they ran their campaigns? I think a bit of both.

I agree that it was a combination of both. People in Jersey are generally idiots and were afraid of a pro-2nd Amendment candidate. At the same time, the Republican Party completely screwed over the Schundler campaign.

However, let's look at the long-term picture. I have put my reputation on the line here on FR, and have GUARANTEED that Schundler will win the general election in '05. Judging by McSkeevy's poll numbers currently, this is not far-fetched to believe.

As long as that happens, I'm willing to deal with 4 years of McGreevy. IMO, four years of the Skeeve followed by a Schundler victory beats the hell out of a scumbag RINO like DiFrancesco or Whitman running the state for 8.

I guess what I am saying is that I am personally willing to "hold my nose" and vote for someone I dislike in the General Election, but in the primaries, I will ALWAYS vote my concience, regardless of the "electability" of my chosen candidate.