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.

[goodseedhomeschool]

So long you liberal freaks who hide on this freaky website. One day you will grow up and learn what real Republicans are.

[Southack]

"At which point has the 4th Am. been stretched to the point it's broken?"

Certainly not at the point to which we're taken by the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search.

[tpaine]

You are confused to think you have the power & ability to define and limit the issue to a 'single topic argument'.

[FreeReign]

"Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of 3103a?"

Not offhand. Do you?

There is nothing in 3103a that would change the context of Sec. 213 of the Patriot Act...although I have not yet seen Section 3101.

I'm look specifically for any reference to terrorism.

[Southack]

"Just pointing out that whipping out that great list of accomplishments can be offset by whipping out another list of unconstitutional federal spending. That doesn't seem to bother you though."

Doesn't seem to bother me?! Sheesh. I've already covered Bush's spending on this very thread, yet you spout off such an attack on me without even reading...

Southack's Views On Bush's Spending Posted Already Here On This Same Very Thread - just click to see

[Southack]

I was merely trying to avoid endless digressions. Your mileage may vary.

[Sir Gawain]

Well we'll have to see how your predictions pan out in a few years.

Oh, and just to mention something off topic, I hope no one clicks on your profile page while they're at work, since you have pictures that are being hosted by an amateur porn site. Being the head of a company, I'm sure you realize that networks would log that the pc has accessed a porn site if someone clicks on your page.

[ApesForEvolution]

You're a real winner.

[Southack]

You're truly digging for personal dirt on me.

I've got tons of dirt to be found. Afraid that I can't run for office.

On the other hand, personal dirt is merely a distraction from the topic at hand.

Is your argument truly so intellectually weak that it requires such distractions?

If so, you can rest assured that on any level playing field, such an argument will fail to carry the day.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Certainly not at the point to which we're taken by the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search."

Worth repeating, with strong emphasis.

So much for Constitutional search and seizure. Glad to know this doesn't bother you.

[Sir Gawain]

I'm not digging for dirt. Give me a freaking break. You call looking at your profile page and seeing where your images are hosted "digging for dirt"? A little reactionary I would say.

My only reason for bringing that up was the concern that was stated. FR is assumed to be a sanitary website that is generally safe for viewing at work, yes or no? Accidentally viewing your profile while at work could land someone in trouble. I guess you don't care though. Carry on.

[Cultural Jihad]

One day you will grow up and learn what real Republicans are.

Gee, you came to this thread asking if there was "a more ultra conservative party besides the GOP" and claiming you are here to learn. Now you are claiming that it is we who need to learn, and that we are not really Republicans. Does Hillary pay you to post here, by the way? If she pays you more than a twenty-five cents per post tell her she is wasting her money.

---

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

Could someone tell me ( I am here to learn) if there is a more ultra conservative party other than the GOP?

346 posted on 07/11/2003 2:10 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (Evolution is the religion for men who want no accountability)

---

To: goodseedhomeschool

None that have a prayer of a chance at success.

381 posted on 07/11/2003 2:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

---

To: Jim Robinson

That is what I always though too. We do need to ban together if we want to improve America.

386 posted on 07/11/2003 3:02 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (Evolution is the religion for men who want no accountability)

---

To: goodseedhomeschool

We do need to ban together if we want to improve America.

BWAHAHAHAHA! You probably don't know you just got the funniest line in this whole thread. BTW - the word is band. ;-)

404 posted on 07/11/2003 5:26 PM PDT by TomServo (Free Illbay!!)

---

To: TomServo

OOPs! I really made a fraudian typo there, lol. Sorry.

429 posted on 07/11/2003 9:37 PM PDT by goodseedhomeschool (Evolution is the religion for men who want no accountability)

---

[Southack]

"So much for Constitutional search and seizure."

Ahhh, but that's the point. It is Constitutional.

Now, whether or not it "bothers" me is an entirely different argument, one in which I feel would amount to a digression from the key topic under debate (though would probably be the distraction that many who are handily losing the argument on this thread would probably welcome with open arms).

[ApesForEvolution]

Are you and TomServo English majors? Or do you just play the part on the internet?

[tpaine]

Southack wrote: I was merely trying to avoid endless digressions. Your mileage may vary


You are merely trying to avoid digressions as to why you defend an 'Act' repugnant to our constitution, imo.

[ApesForEvolution]

At what point would it become un-Constitutional in your view? I could care less what the USSC says, because the Constitution is not, obviously, of their concern.

I view it as not only stretching the 4th Am., but breaking it, both by the letter of the law and its previous standards.

At this rate, why will we need the Constitution? Do you not see that?

[Cultural Jihad]

That particular disruptor didn't seem to have much of a problem with English. Now that it is gone, it looks like the pickings are getting thinner whenever you want to engage in endless evolution-creationism threads.

[Southack]

"At what point would it become un-Constitutional in your view?"

Certainly not at the point that was written and passed into law. Beyond that, I see no gain in commenting.

It's your claim, after all, not mine, that the Patriot Act is unConstitutional.

Yet you can show no such illegal text in the actual legal language of the law itself.

[ApesForEvolution]

She was no more a disruptor to this forum than you are to conservatism. But I'm sure you feel proud now. Aren't you the it.

[Southack]

"You are merely trying to avoid digressions as to why you defend an 'Act' repugnant to our constitution, imo."

You are welcome to continue this debate in my email. My intention was to keep the clutter on this thread to a minimum, as such clutter is frequently used by those losing intellectual arguments as an excuse for changing the subject.

I need no such distraction or digression. Perhaps others do.