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.

[Post Toasties]

GWB is pro-family, a major plus, and I hardly know of any Democrats who pay the two parent family more than lip service. Plus, I don't conflate the USSC rulings with the current administration. However, I do think a Dem President cannot benefit the country wrt Federal Judiciary appointments at any level, given his voter constituency.

[Jim Robinson]

Lots of heavy griping going on around here about Bush and the Republicans from the sit-on-the-hands or third party types. But no matter how many times I've asked, none of you have ever presented a viable plan to advance the conservative cause that has any chance of succeeding without first giving up and handing the government back to the avowed baby-killers and America-hating socialists.

So you would rather have a Democrat as president? How in the world will Democrats controlling government for the next eight to twelve years and appointing the next several rounds of federal and supreme court judges going to help advance our cause? Looks to me like that's a sure fire formula for setting us back by about 40 years.

Is there no other way to advance our cause other than surrendering to decades of pure hell?

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

Agreed.

[finnman69]

finnman, what the people on here want you to do is to vote for a candidate who will LOSE. (You know, a nice anarchist in Libertarian clothing.) I voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton and if I had still lived in NYC, I would've voted for RINO Bloomberg (blech) over Mark Green (blechier). Sometimes our choices come down to that. When the Troubletarians have a viable presidential candidate with what I consider to be truly conservative views without all the wacko accoutrements, I will consider voting for that person. Doubt it will ever happen though.

Correct, I believe that voting Republican will make a difference. I believe not voting for the Republican of my choice out of protest does not help me. I also believe voting for minor party candidate is a waste of time and a waste of my vote and enables the Democrat to win with one fewer vote. Picking belly button lint and making sculptures out of it is more constructive than anything the libertarian, reform party or constitution party has acocmplished.

[finnman69]

Thank you for spelling out the obvious to those who have their hands over their ears and go "LALALALALALALALA".

[husky ed]

Well, I've voted for GWB, and I voted for his daddy. I voted for him both for state and national office. I've contributed funds too. I have not missed an election since I could legally vote, and I have punched the straight GOP ticket each time.

Like you I too have vote in every election since I could legally (1976). And I have voted Republican.
But I am getting sick and tire of President Bush standing up for the AWB, illegal aliens, gay rights and all the rest of the liberal agenda.

Just tell me once again how much worst Hillary could be?

Oh BTW, thanks for the tax brake. It made the apologist on here love you even more.

[TBP]

Is the GOP conservative as compared to the Liberal Left?

No, they're clones. But the professional Republicans will never alet tehmselves see this. $222 billion in new social spending in the past two years and that's before Republicans stick us with the largest entitlement program in 35 years.

[deport]

The Republicans are sheep in wolf's clothing.

---

But it's the only wolf we have at this time.. Unless you can tell us a better formula. Just how would you accomplish getting control of this government, turning it around, etc. without letting the democrats gain control again? What organization is in place on a national level with the candidates and financing ready to run that can take over the Senate, House and Presidency? Until that is accomplished then it's either the democrats or the Republicans that will be the majority. JMO.

[Post Toasties]

I agree that slavery was and is an evil institution, and was a horribly contentious, costly and divisive one, also for this country. Even though I personally find the 'sausage making' aspect of political compromise repugnant, that doesn't mean I believe that politicians are all constitutionally unable to retain any valuable principles. FWIW, I believe most northern states abolished almost all slavery within their borders within about a generation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

[Sid Rich]

As was pointed out by rogerthedodger, Republican Presidents have been appointing most federal judges over the last 30 years and where has that gotten us? I can no longer stomach saying "Bush is a conservative" when his foreign policy is Wilsonian and his domestic agenda is a healthy mixture of FDR and LBJ. Hardly a conservative. My plan is to join the Constitution Party and start donating time and money to it in an attempt to offer a viable alternative to the two-party cartel we see in Washington. If that makes me "beyond the Pale"...so be it.

As for your fear that a Democrat in the White House will "set us back 40 years"...again, I say that the only time Republicans in Congress seem to remember we're the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility is when there IS a Democrat in the White House. If George Bush said the feds should start confiscating all personal property in the US, the current Congress would sing hosannas to such a "conservative" plan. I have come to the conclusion that the main agenda of this Administration is reelection....hence handouts to every group they can identify (the elderly, minorities, etc.)

[Jim Robinson]

"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."

Amen!

Notice that this does not mean throwing the bums out and turning government back to the Democrats. Work WITH them and ON them. Talk to them. Write to them. Tell them what you want done. Join associations that urge the Republicans to advance conservative causes. Strength in numbers make all the difference in the world. Splintering into tiny factions only helps the other side advance their agenda.

[Jim Robinson]

Sorry, I don't buy it. And I'm not willing to surrender to the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party is pure evil to me. The litmus test for judges in Democrat opinion means a qualified judicial nominee must be an abortionist, feminist, homosexualist, anti-second amendment, anti-states rights, anti-Constitution, anti-America and anti-God.

No thank you!! Surrendering to the Democrats is out of the question!!

[TBP]

Nobody likes compromise, but people understand that at times it is necessary. However, you never compromise your principles (Republicans do this all the time) and you make sure that the compromise moves the ball in your direction, even if not as far as you would like (Republicans almost never do this.)

[Sid Rich]

I don't consider supporting a conservative party and candidates "surrender"...we'll just have to agree to disagree on semantics.

[TBP]

A very good plan indeed. Good for you.

[Sid Rich]

Thanks.

[Post Toasties]

My experience has been that the self-professed 'no compromise on principle' Conservatives provide little more than target practice for the 'scorched earth tactics' Left in the political battlefield.

[Jim Robinson]

We'll do more than agree to disagree. If you intend to come onto FR and preach your kind of madness, your welcome will wear thin long before the campaign season heats up. If you mean to campaign against Republicans and for Democrats you will find yourself doing it somewhere other than FR. And that's a fact!

[Miss Marple]

It seems to me that you are awfully interested in getting a democrat in the White House. We already had that situation, remember? And while the Republicans in Congress did try to hold spending, they were unable to pass a veto-proof Partial Birth Abortion ban, reduce the federal budget, or increase military spending.

Clinton in the White House through his executive powers did much damage to this nation, including selling secrets to the Chinese, making efforts to implement Kyoto through executive orders, and generally dividing this country by playing one faction off against another.

In addition, presidents control foreign policy and executive appointments. Are you wanting another 4-12 years of Clintonian foreign policy? Are you wanting DoD run by a hack or a poet? Are you wanting another Madeline Albright in State? Another Janet Reno in Justice? Are you wanting nothing but leftist judges appointed?

Your idea that we should elect a Rat in order to get a more conservative Congress is one of the spins I expect Terry McAuliffe has come up with to post on this forum. It is a losing proposition, and if you continue to spout it I will assume that rather than being emotional and thoughtless, you are actively working for the democrats.