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.

[x]

The appeal to rally conservatives is a worthy one, but I don't trust where it comes from. National Review wants to be free to a) form a governing slightly right of center coalition and b) speak up for core conservative values. Either is possible. I suppose one can even mix the two to some degree. It may even be unavoidable. But one ought to be more careful than they have been.

It's a commonplace for journalists to attack government administrations as ships without rudders or captains. But one could say the same thing about conservatism's flagship publication. If one calls for radical change around the world, and for a more powerful federal government in some contexts, one will inevitably have to deal with the consequences that government and change inevitably create. If one gets lax about the budget, there's no point in blaming others for following your lead. Before one boasts about being fully at home in the modern world one really ought to examine where that world is headed.

One response to the growing neo-conservative role in the conservative movement during the 1980s was about the reformed woman of lax morals being welcome in church but not asked to lead the choir. I think it applies to National Review today. You can't be a Bush cheerleader for three years and an admonishing conservative pope all of a sudden. Those who were setting up to conduct purges a few months ago aren't the best conservative spokesmen today. They are slippery political operatives and should be read with much skepticism, rather than trusted and taken at their word.

The news about stripping the Court's jurisdiction on some issues is important and should be followed and discussed, though.

[Post Toasties]

I'm sorry. That should be directed to 'Southern Federalist'.

[Dane]

Good analysis.

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

Thanks, I very much appreciate the compliment.

I really got PO'ed at the trashing(by Libertarians on FR) of Robert Bork when I saw this thread.

Robert H. Bork: Civil Liberties After 9/11

Robert Bork should rightfully have Justice Kennedy's current seat on SCOTUS.

[Post Toasties]

I cut and pasted that amazing excerpt from a post in which Finman responded to it.

[He Rides A White Horse]

The Dems are out for blood and why? The courts, nothing concerns them more than the judicial nominees.

Yes Dolphy; a group of liberal activist judges in place, ruling by fiat.

[Post Toasties]

I apologize to Southern Federalist too. I got the meaning of his post backwards.

Signing off now.

[Texas Federalist]

I agree that voting for a third party is throwing away your vote, but the lesser of two evils isn't much better. It seems like one party rule on the national level inevitably moves toward big government. It's frustrating. I will probably suck it up and vote for Bush, but I can't help that when exit polls show Republicans are losing conservative voters the party will move to the right out of necessity, a move they will not make if we keep voting for Republican leaders no matter what they do while in office.

Interestingly enough, in Texas, one party rule by Republicans has seen the opposite effect as that on the national level. Politics in Texas has been heaven since the Republicans took over every state-wide office: balanced budget on spending cuts, relaxed gun controls, more abortion restrictions . . . Too bad the national party can't get it right.

[BlackElk]

Do you have a problem with shooting people somewhere in the world who badly need shooting? We call that interventionism and it is essential to Republicanism and to conservatism but not to libertarianism, libertinism, or the Demonratic Party. Interesting choice of issues upon which to bash Dubya.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!

[dr_who_2]

Who writes for American Conservative? Ponurru or Buchanan?

[Trace21230]

Well, it's like this:

Option One: Vote for a candidate [insert fringe party kook here] that agrees with you 100%, but has zero chance of winning the election. PRO: Gee, I'm so glad I voted my conscience. CON: Dam, I lost again, and got nothing.

Option Two: Vote for a candidate [usually Republican, perhaps Zell-type Democrat] that agrees with you 50-75% of the time and has a fifty-fifty chance of winning. PRO: Hey, I got half of what I want, as opposed to zilch. CON: I can't piss and moan all day long about the entrenched two-party system and the fascist/liberals in charge.

In my truly humble opinion, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Option One is totally untenable. In fact, most first graders can figure out that FIFTY is more than ZERO.

Of course, some people never outlive the first grade. They have to keep throwing temper tantrums until they get their way. In the end it's best to ignore them and hope they grow up.

Trace

[BlackElk]

Howard Phillips is a geat guy with a very good resume but the Constitution Party can't have me nor can it have anyone who cares about the future of the country more than he or she cares about, ummmmm, ideologically satisfying himself or herself in public.

[Sid Rich]

I had no problem with the Afghanistan venture as the regime harbored terrorists who had attacked us. We had a clear right under various theories of law to intervene in Afghanistan. I did not (and still don't) think the decision to invade Iraq was sound. I also disagree with you that interventionism is a hallmark of conservatism. I've got to run now.

[BlackElk]

I would vote for Zell Miller early and often but I have the distasteful and sometimes successful experience of having fought Weicker at close quarters at Connecticut GOP conventions. I would have voted for Henry Jackson over Weicker. I did vote for Lieberman over Weicker and, trust me, Lieberman, even Lieberman, is less of an enemy of our country than Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. Those Republicans who voted for Lieberman took away what Lowell considered his birthright: a United States Senate seat. Bill Buckley endorsed Lieberman over Weicker. You needn't worry about Bloomberg as a GOP nominee because he would need support from delegates outside NYC. Never happen! Not in your lifetime. Not in Bloomberg's lifetime. Not in God's lifetime. You can take that to the bank.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Well Trace, some people seem to think that because you vote for somebody, you agree with 100% of what they do. I don't agree with everything President does or says; I will say that I agree with quite a bit, certainly enough that I will support him in the next election.

That certainly doesn't mean I won't press my party to do things for my vote. We have every right to do so.

When people say things implying that the Republican Party is 'just like' the Democrat Party, I shake my head in amazement. It's a patently ridiculous assertion; to reduce this President to the status of Nancy Pelosi's soulmate is insanity of the first magnitude.

[B Knotts]

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.

Yes, that's the right course of action.

It's a little frustrating to feel like we're being actively fought against by Rove & Co., though. It'd be nice if we could feel that the party infrastruction was on the same side.

[Trace21230]

It's a patently ridiculous assertion; to reduce this President to the status of Nancy Pelosi's soulmate is insanity of the first magnitude.

Exactly. It might sound plausible if they tried this tactic with someone like Lincoln Chafee or Connie Morella. But Bush? Give me a break.

In related news, I will take Lincoln Chafee over Ted Kennedy, and Connie Morella over Maxine Waters any day of the week.

The idea that Bush is some sort of liberal is laughable.

Trace

[B Knotts]

or the Demonratic Party

Whoa, there...I gotta point out that the DemocRATs have no problem whatsoever getting into shootin' wars...as long as it's a DEMOCRAT president who's in charge of who we're shootin'!

[Tedmeister]

We must remember that George W is a politician and like the rest of them they put their political party above what's best for the USA. Take the U.S. borders for instance, still wide open for fear of losing the Hispanic vote and caving into the Dem's on education and prescription drugs.
If given the choice now to vote for Gore or Bush I would still vote Bush, because of Gore's track record.