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.

[Dog Gone]

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.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA Have fun, Don Quixote. Tell the windmills hi for me.

[Post Toasties]

Yes. This is pragmatic, and, for now, the best way the
Republican Party has to avoid the auto-self-marginalization disease of Conservatives who cannot effectively distinguish between 'in principle' and 'in reality'.

[Jim Robinson]

This website stands for combatting liberalism and reversing our century long downhill slide into the pits of socialist hell. It does not stand for helping to elect more Democrats. We're at a crossroads here. For one of the very rare times in our history, the Republicans are holding the White House and the Congress. It's an historic opportunity seeing as how we will probably see some turnover in the Supreme Court in the next decade or so. Why would any conservative in his right mind want take the path that allows the liberals to make those appointments?

[Dane]

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?

Ok let's use SCOTUS as a test case. Nixon appointed Rehnquist. Ford appointed liberal Stevens, no big surprise there.

Reagan appointed O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. O'Connor was the fulfilling of a campaign promise and now 20 years later a big mistake. Scalia, no one on FR has a problem with. Kennedy was Reagan's third choice. Oldmobile Ted Kennedy in 1987, "borked" Robert Bork, and some people(Libertarians) on FR have had praise for Oldsmobile Ted for keeping Robert Bork off of SCOTUS.

That leads us to Justice Kennedy, who is a good friend of liberal Harvard Law Professor, Laurence Tribe.

Next we have Souter, appointed by Bush, and everybody on FR will agree that was a mistake, but there is a plethora of evidence that Bush was snookered by McCain mentor, former NH Senator Warren Rudman.

Next comes Clarence Thomas, even with the fraudulent accusations leveled to him by charlatan Anita Hill, barely passed Senate confirmation.

Next comes the Clinton appointees, Ginsburg and Breyer. Both passed confirmation easily because of the 56-44 advantage the demo's had in the Senate during 92-94.

Now comes the next question, if Bush 41 had been President during the 92-94 period, would he have appointed 2 key votes on the liberal wing of SCOTUS.

JMO, but I highly doubt that he would have appointed Ginsburg or Breyer, and we would never know who he appointed for Scotus in that time period, since malcontent conservatives went to Ross Perot, whose wife at the time was a bigwig in the Texas chapter of Planned Parenthood.

Now it is fair conversation to debate if Bush 41 was President during the time period(92-94) when the SCOTUS vacancies came up, to debate who Bush 41 would have nominated.

You Sid, would probably argue that it would have been 2 Souter's. I would argue against that and argue that Bush 41 would have nominated 2 more Clarence Thomas's since Bush 41 won the tough nomination fight in a demo Senate, even after the demo's threw all the mud they had and it didn't stick.

But we will never know since from the history of that time, a lot of malcontent conservatives threw thier vote to Perot, giving the Clintons the victory and giving Clinton the power to nominate and appoint Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

[finnman69]

I'm guessing a guy like you spends alot of time thinking of things inserted in posteriors.

Let me add to my statement. Yes I used the analogy of Libertarians being as productive as the act of inserting a thumb in your ass. Yes I thought of it and wrote it down. The difference between you and me is that I use my imagination whereas the location of where I suggested libertarians place their thumbs is indicative of where their brains reside.

[rogerthedodger]

First, I would say we're not playing on a level field here. Conservatives have already lost enormous ground over the last 70 years. Merely staying on the defensive keeps us where we are. We need to move to the offensive.

It becomes a matter of judgment and prediction. At what point does working within the system begin to look ineffective. Maybe we all differ solely on our internal attitudes of optimisim or pessimism. I'm beginning to reach the conclusion that working within the system is not working, and I feel that my assessment is right in the broad context of history.

[Jim Robinson]

That's perfectly fine with me. That's my goal. I see moving conservatives up through the ranks of the Republican party (the only conservative party with the strenght to do it) as our best way of getting it accomplished. What's your plan?

[Post Toasties]

Have Sid Rich et al ever considered that they're taking on the same rigid attitudes wrt principles and ideals that pretty well keep Libertarians out of elected office?

[arasina]

we might actually get the beginnings of Social Security privatization, conservative judges, drastic reduction of the power of the public employee's unions by hiring out more federal jobs to private firms, deeper tax cuts, and the abolition of the death tax -- all things which any honest observer knows that George Bush would have done already if he had had real control of the Senate.

Well said! Your entire post is going in my "Keeper" folder.

[Trace21230]

ugh, sorry about the double post

the Bush-haters give me an antsy trigger finger!!!

Trace

[finnman69]

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. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA Have fun, Don Quixote. Tell the windmills hi for me.

As a reminder:

Election 20000

Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green Party 2,882,985 2.74%

Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform Party 449,120 0.43%

Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian Party 384,440 0.36%

Other (Constitution Party) - - 232,922 0.22%

You guys are the 'Other'.

[goodseedhomeschool]

I am learning more and more every day. I am starting to wonder how "conservative" the GOP is.

[Dog Gone]

Good analysis.

The Supreme Court is the real prize here, and the real reason why it is imperative to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats.

[Dolphy]

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.

I couldn't agree with you more. The problem for those who don't find Bush conservative enough is that they have no platform or candidate that could be elected to a national office. Having a pro-life, pro-tax cut, pro-national defense President who was able to get himself elected and then, against all odds, gain seats in the Senate, is not good enough for some though.

The Dems are out for blood and why? The courts, nothing concerns them more than the judicial nominees. Witness their behavior in the Senate. Nothing is more important to them, every other issue is simply about trolling for votes so that they can control the judicial climate in this country.

[ActionNewsBill]

Shouldn't be hard to find wacko libertarian bush bashing posts. FR is full of em these days.

Thankfully Jim Rob is cleaning house.

Jim said on a different post that Libertarians are "our good friends".

Where is this house cleaning you speak of?

[Jim Robinson]

Is that so? How many years in your lifetime have you worked within a system where the Democrats did not have almost total control of, if not all three, then at least two branches of our government? How many years have you worked within the system have the Republicans controlled all three? Or even Two?

[Jim Robinson]

And by the way, who ever said there'd be a level playing field? Those expecting level playing fields are going to be ground into the mud.

[BlackElk]

Then, by all means, run a Libertarian candidate, run Howard Phillips as a Constitution Party candidate, run Pat Buchanan (for whom I have voted in GOP primaries before he went native on foreign policy harkening fondly back to the likes of Neville Chamberlain) again on whatever party Pat chooses to run on. The GOP can then concentrate on re-electing Bush and electing more Senators, Congresscritters, Governors and state legislators. The problem is the absence of a coherent conservative movement. It is not Dubya's fault that WE cannot get OUR act together.

I voted for Dubya. He's not perfect but he beats the hell out of the alternatives of a Demonratic president, or a libertine, a neo-isolationist, or anyone who thinks the constitution will be restored in their lifetime.

[arasina]

"...since malcontent conservatives went to Ross Perot..."

Arghhh! You had to remind me. I was one. Guilty. NEVER AGAIN. I repeat. NEVER AGAIN.

[Post Toasties]

But can anyone say with a straight face that there will not be a dime's worth of difference between the Bush Administration and a Kerry Administration, or a Gephard administration, or -- Lord save us -- a Dean administration?

What good would it do telling you about the galaxy of differences, if you refuse to comprehend the fundamental one of different constituencies? You've preemptively convinced yourself that none exist apparently because the art of politics and diplomacy is incompatible with your worldview.