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.

[Jim Robinson]

"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."

And, in the meantime, for the better part of the last two centuries governance of the nation has been steadily sliding to the left, or at least, away from the constitutionally limited republican form of government as established by our founders. If (libertarian/constitutionalist) third parties are having any influence, I don't see it. Would be far better in my opinion to run our most conservative candidates as Republicans where they at least stand a chance of being elected. They're bound to have more effective direct influence on legislation and policy as elected representatives than they will ever have shouting from the peanut gallery. Of course, that means they'd have to clean up there act a bit and make themselves presentable to the electorate. Refer to CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul, big (R) small (l) for example.

[TBP]

My experience has been that supporting Republicans only gets us Big Government. Democrat policy with a human face -- that's the GOP.

[TBP]

So you think we should violate ourprinciples just so Democrats don't win? Don't you see that when we do that, the Democrats do win, even if they lose? But that is a very Republican thing to do.

I guess the Republican Party is more important than conservative principles, right?

[Jim Robinson]

How much experience have you had supporting Republicans when they held all three branches of government and the majority of the state houses and state legislatures?

[Jim Robinson]

Keeping the Democrats out of control for at least three or four election cycles in a row will give us a chance at a complete turnover in the judiciary. The goal here is to end liberal judicial activism. This will set liberalism back at least 40 years. It makes absolutely no sense to waste time (and votes) on third parties at this time when the only thing it accomplishes is help elect Democrats. Sorry, but that won't get the job done.

[A Navy Vet]

That's why I'm seriously looking at the Constitution Party...it's growing.

And why in the world would you use that screen name? I hate that saying as a kid.

[Jim Robinson]

If we allow the Democrats to select the next several rounds of Supreme Court picks, then we've guaranteed that they'll ALL be liberals. FDR's dream court. Not to mention the rest of the federal judiciary. No thanks. I'd much rather take my chances with the Republicans.

[CWOJackson]

Thanks for providing the best evidence of what JR is saying. Ron Paul couldn't get come close to getting elected as a libertarian candidate. It was only when he became a Republican that he could get elected. It's only as a Republican that he has any political voice whatsoever.

[A Navy Vet]

I understand. I'm just getting tired of watching Republicans cower before liberal special interests and pandering to others. Why is no one talking about reducing the size of the fedgov anymore? The last real change I remember was in 1994 under Newt's leadership.

There's coming a time when I will vote my principles once again...

[jmc813]

Ron Paul couldn't get come close to getting elected as a libertarian candidate. It was only when he became a Republican that he could get elected.

Agreed, but with one minor nitpick. Paul still is a libertarian (note the small l) politician. Had you capitalized the L, I'd have agreed with you 100%.

[CWOJackson]

As long as it says (R) on the ballot he's a Republican. Maybe a Republican in name only but if he puts (L) or (l) on the ballot he's an ex-Congressman.

[jmc813]

You're missing the point. Libertarian with a big L denotes a party affiliation. libertarian with a small l denotes a political philosiphy. It's like saying there are conservative Republicans (i.e. Newt Gingrich), liberal Republicans (i.e. Olympia Snowe), centrist Republicans(i.e. President Bush) and libertarian Republicans (i.e. Ron Paul). Make sense?

[Kryptonite]

If we allow the Democrats to select the next several rounds of Supreme Court picks, then we've guaranteed that they'll ALL be liberals. FDR's dream court. Not to mention the rest of the federal judiciary. No thanks. I'd much rather take my chances with the Republicans.

This article sounds almost a defeatist tone over the prospect of more Republican appointees, but the Republicans have brought it all entirely upon themselves with the Stevens, Souter and Kennedy appointments, not to mention O'Connor, and particularly considering the profoundly weak reaction of the Republican Senate to the unheard-of and unconstitutional filibuster of the Estrada and Owens appointments. Americans who truly care about the direction this country will follow should be energized by the two recent decisions, and the emphasis should be at ground zero, i.e., these two appointments.

I don't give two hoots whether the Constitution Party, Republican Party or anyone else gets us Scalia-like sitting judges/justices, but we need to get there, and fast. With each passing day apathy is killing our Republic.

[Jim Robinson]

You should always vote your principles.

Here are some of the Democrat Party's principles:

They say abortion is a constitutional right.

They say the second amendment does not apply to individuals.

They say that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.

They say that government provided healthcare is a constitutional right.

They say that the Constitution should be subserviant to the United Nations.

They say that we must subject ourselves to the environmental nazi agencies (world-wide).

They say that the Constitution can be amended by the Courts.

They say that admittance to universities should be based on race.

They say that homosexualism (and many other perversions
that may be repugnant to you and me) must be normalized and taught to our youngsters in government controlled schools, yet God cannot even be mentioned.

They say that the federal government should control and fund all matters relating to health, education, welfare and the environment.

They say that we should not defend our nation when attacked.

Etc, etc, etc.

As long as your principles allow people with the above to completely control every aspect of your life, then you should have no problem allowing the Democrats to retake control.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, I guarantee you that you will NOT get a conservative court if the Democrats do the selecting. And seeing as how (even by their own admission) the Libertarian and Constitution parties will never ever be elected, much less be the majority party, they will never ever be the parties selecting the judiciary. That means our ONLY hope of kicking out the liberals is to continue supporting the Republicans.

[Ben Bolt]

Thats an interesting comment to read before I call it a day . Place marker bump .

[jmc813]

Refer to CONGRESSMAN Ron Paul, big (R) small (l) for example.

Amen, Jim. It seems that a lot of folks tend to look at the worst of the Republicans (i.e. Snowe) and overlook the great people we do have. If conservatives were to abandon the party at this point, in addition to helping get Dems elected, they would also be enabling the RINO's, and screwing over the true conservative Repubs at the same time.

[BillyBoy]

>> Who would you vote for in a race between Zell Miller and Lowell Wieker? <<

Third party. The two options you listed are both pro-abortion, social welfare spending, Clintonites.

[Kryptonite]

That means our ONLY hope of kicking out the liberals is to continue supporting the Republicans.

Supporting Republicans got us Souter, Stevens and Kennedy. Not a track record for claiming pride, and hardly a basis upon which to assert that liberals will be "kicked out" by contiued support of Republicans. The Republicans can't even get well-qualified Presidential appointments on the bench with all the majorities you've identified. Anything you promise deserves skepticism in light of the reality of the day.

I've been trying to get people to wake up to the travesty of the judicial appointment filibusters for a long time, with considerable disappointment. Many - too many - on this forum would rather whine after the fact than write and call all their politicians (dems, pubbies, indys - all of them) at every level to exert the pressure necessary to effect real change within the judiciary. The subject has to be emphasized at every level to obtain anything close to an acceptable result.

[Jim Robinson]

What will the Democrats get you?