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.

[Catalonia]

He also went on to say that without the increased spending for DoD and Homeland Security including Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget for the Country would be shrinking not growing.

Interesting stat. Does anybody link to some hard numbers on this? It's sure to come up again.

[ExSoldier]

"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."

Okay...I'm not going to read every post to see if this has already been raised, so I apologize in advance if this raises that which has already been raised....IF ANYBODY thinks NOW is the time to bring a 2nd Amendment case upon which rests the very fabric of the republic...they're NUTS!

We have just one shot to clarify the true and original meaning of the Amendment which frames all the rest...and suddenly there are what? THREE potential 2nd Amendment cases to be brought before the High Court? NOW? When this court and the Justices have clearly signalled a definite tip to the hardcore left? Insanity. Justice Breyer has come out and said that the Constitution does not fit with his vision of "world government."

There are four members of the Council on Foreign relations on the USSC already...one more and we can kiss our liberty and our soverignty goodbye. We need at least 2 more "Scalias" before we decide a 2nd Amendment case.

[jmc813]

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

Would you care to expand on that a bit? Of the people recently banned, I cannot think of any libertarians. In fact, JimRob endorses most of the platform of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is the strongest small-l libertarian force going today.

[Catalonia]

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?

Sigh. So much to say. So little time. Will somebody please tell me why so many people on this board can't seem to differentiate between political parties and political ideology? A Libertarian, someone who is a member of the Libertarian Party, is not the same thing as a libertarian, someone who believes in limited government, the free market, et al. On the political spectrum, libertarians are conservative, so it follows that not all conservatives are Republicans, and yet people think that Republican Party = conservative thought. Jeez, some people need to get past this high school level of political thinking.

And regarding why a Libertarian has never been elected, it is for the same reason no third party candidates were elected in the 20th century. In the modern era the major political parties merely absorb the platforms of any viable third party when they become a force. That's the bad news. The good news is that third parties and alternative ideas can have an influence in shifting the ideology and make-up of the major parties, but will never get elected.

Capiche?

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent article. Thanks so much.

I totally agree with this:

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.

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.

[nonliberal]

It is becoming more along the lines of "The Least Evil of Two Lessers."

[The Old Hoosier]

Don't forget that Reed is a hired gun.

The key to Bush and the Republicans is that you have to kick and scream to get them to go your way. Third party is a waste of time, but constant praise of Bush only makes him even more invulnerable and even less accountable.

[PhiKapMom]

I know that about Reed but he was good anyway.

Remember the Ambassador Wilson guy? Look what I found in his biography:

Here is the tie-in to the RATs from his own biography:

"In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley, as an American Political Science Association Congressional Fellow."

[The Old Hoosier]

I hardly know of any Democrats who pay the two parent family more than lip service.

I can't name any sitting Republican presidents who do, either. Bush can't even take a stand on homosexual marriage.

I'm not going to go off and support Dems, but I find it a problem.

[nonliberal]

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

Seven of the nine SCOTUS judges are REPUBLICAN appointees and we can't even get five to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Other Republican appointees decided to add the word "diversity" into the Constution and sanction homosexuality.

Yay Republicans!!!

[The Old Hoosier]

I think we're facing a much bigger problem than you realize. I'm all for re-electing Bush, but his failure to address and his willingness to undermine conservatives' concerns, combined with sell-out RINO governors--in Ala., Nev., Ohio, Ga., Ark. (alas), N.Y., and probably others too--who are raising taxes, will likely take a considerable toll by next year and make the immediate political future a lot worse than it should be.

[The Old Hoosier]

That's a good find on Wilson, btw.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

fact, JimRob endorses most of the platform of the Republican Liberty Caucus, which is the strongest small-l libertarian force going today.

If I understand JimRob correctly, he's completely cool with RLC libertarians and other constitutionalists, traditionalists, etc., provided they labor to affect change from within the GOP.

[ApesForEvolution]

I don't bother with the Republican label anymore.

We live in a day when the Democrats have adopted the World Communist mantra and manifesto and the Republicans have adopted our great grandfather's Democrat ideals.

Which truly leaves only contemporary conservatives as the torch bearers for restoring America to a pre-deconstructionist, Constitutional form of government.

Which is why most of the GOP despises conservatives (yet throws us a few bones to keep us on the plantation - because the GOP still can't win anything without us).

I have worked the grassroots for conservatives at a very high level for many, many years. All national campaigns that I supported and all but a handful of local campaigns were GOP candidates.

And yet I can honestly say that battling the RNC at every turn to try and improve America is becoming more and more hard to rationalize.

I'm all for winning, yet what have we really won by compromising the Constitution and republic-an ideals for the last many decades - to the point where I can't tell where the RAT party stops and where the GOP starts?

[John Lenin]

Thank God SOMEBODY has the intestinal fortitude to write this, instead of just "cheering the Republican team on".

I still haven't decided wetherI will vote in 04. Bush is a RINO except on defense.

[ApesForEvolution]

Whig Party

[gcruse]

That's the best explanation of things
I've seen in a while. Well done.

[jmc813]

If I understand JimRob correctly, he's completely cool with RLC libertarians and other constitutionalists, traditionalists, etc., provided they labor to affect change from within the GOP.

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.

However, several of the communitarians/authoritarians scoff when one mentions congressmen like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, and then act all offended when you point out Bush's left of center record. I'm sure you can understand how it gets annoying.

[jmc813]

Interesting thread here.

[Pyro7480]

Buchanan is one of the founders for the American "Conservative."