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.

[Kuksool]

{I will take Lincoln Chafee over Ted Kennedy}

There isn't much difference between these two gentlemen. Lincoln Chafee's voting record is a lot more liberal than some fellow Democrats in Congress. In fact in the 2000 election, Chafee's opponent, Robert Weygand, was a pro-life Democrat. I would be very surprised if Chafee runs for re-election in 2006 as a Republican. I suspect Chafee is waiting for the right moment to switch parties. Back in 2001, he hinted that he would consider following Jim Jeffords's lead if he was unhappy with President Bush. Thus, it is only a matter of time before Lincoln Chafee comes out of the closet as a Democrat or Independent-Aligning Democrat.

[Consort]

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

In a practical sense, yes, unfortunately. The political parties, and particularly the major parties, govern us all and, therefore, they have a much larger influence on our day-to-day lives, and the way the country is heading, and...you name it....then conservative principles or any other single set of principles for that matter. We are dealing with a hodge-podge of principles all competing with each other. I don't know if any one set of principles can dominate in a democracy or a republic where the electorate determines the ideology in power.

[Kryptonite]

What will the Democrats get you?

Where have the Repubicans gotten us?

[Jim Robinson]

Do you honestly believe that we'll stand a chance of getting conservatives appointed to the judiciary if the Democrats are in control?

[Jim Robinson]

I'll take the Republican over the Democrat if it means that the Republican Caucus holds the majority.

[Jim Robinson]

Or another way to say that is if it prevents the Democrats from holding majority control.

[Kryptonite]

You're not suggesting that encouraging folks to highlight the importance of stopping the filibuster of well-qualified Presidential appointees will inevitably lead to Democrat control, are you?

Jim, I respect you and appreciate this forum, but trying to convince me that unwavering support of Republicans is the best manner of accomplishing what we need within the judiciary just isn't gonna fly. I'd be much more receptive if the abject SCOTUS failures hadn't occurred, and if this forum didn't appear years behind the curve on this issue.

[Jim Robinson]

Stop the filibusters? Hell yes. I'm all in favor of it.

But voting out the Republicans only to give the majority control back to the Democrats is defeating our purposes and is a losing strategy as far as meeting our long-term or short-term goals is concerned.

[Captainpaintball]

I'll take the Republican over the Democrat if it means that the Republican Caucus holds the majority.

But they, with the majority, are doing exactly what the Democrats would do if in power..and in some cases...MORE!

Conservatism, when presented with sincerity, with no apologies offered, and with unwavering confidence, can and still will--beat liberalism every time the choice is offered to a reasonably intelligent voting public.

The sad thing is... no one is even offering Conservatism as a choice! Republicans are represented by pusilanimous pipsqueaks with neither a backbone, nor a working knowledge of the Constitution--the document which these pathetic elected officials swore to uphold and defend. Republicans are passing the liberal agenda, and claiming victory for doing so.

[Jim Robinson]

Furthermore, if we had a filibuster proof Republican Senate, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We need to hold tight to EVERY seat we have and take more!

[Jim Robinson]

We will have zero chance of ending liberal judiciary activism if we allow the liberals control of the appointment and confirmation processes. As long as we have liberals controlling the courts we will suffer under the "living" Constitution.

[ApesForEvolution]

Only a Republican (Nixon) could have kissed up to Red communist china. And only a Republican (Bush) could have accomplished the amount of federal expansion we've seen the last 2 1/2 years. When Bush sends up a true constitutionist conservative and then defends him with every ounce of political capital required to get him confirmed, I'll ligthen up. Forgive me if I'm not holding my breath after what we've seen from the GOP controlled nation's capitol.

[Captainpaintball]

I realize that. But there is no evidence to believe the Republicans will magically grow a spine and a set of brass b@lls if and when we gain control of both the House and the Senate. (which may not happen--18 months is an eternity)

What if they do? Will they "do a 180" and actually start fighting for Conservative issues?

(FEARLESS PREDICTION:)Or will they be portrayed as the the "monopoly" party--akin to a bunch of rich, eeeeeevil, greedy 'corporate' white guys intent on "turning back the clock" to the bad old days of Bull Connor, Segregation, women in bondage...etc now that they have a 'monopoly' on Washington.

The Republicans will be forced to PROVE to the liberals in the media, and the 'swing' voters that they are nice guys, so, once again, as not to offennnnnnd anyone, they will pass even more liberal legislation

The key is to DEMAND that our Republican representatives start promoting a CONSERVATIVE agenda. Unfortunately, I don't know how to 'punish' them if they do not. I believe the next few years are going to be some of the most crucial years we have ever faced--do we sit out the next few election cycles and give control to the Socalist Democrats--effectively sealing the country's fate? Or do we hold our nose and vote for the liberal Republicans--and pray they don't screw it up too much?

[Jim Robinson]

Oh yeah. And here's another guy who believes that he'll have a better chance of turning around the courts if the Democrats are in charge. It's like beating your head into a brick wall. Duh.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes please. I've been begging people to demand. Call. Visit. Write. Protest. Anything to tell them why we're sending them to Washington and what we want them to do when they get there. Also, to work in your local districts to recruit, train and support the best young conservative minds we can and to get them elected and moved up the ladder. There is no other possible way to turn this thing around.

But for crying out loud, in the meantime, let's not get so frustrated in the short-term that we lose sight of the goal. We cannot possibly allow the Democrats to take back control of the Senate or the House or the Presidency. There's way too much at stake!

[ApesForEvolution]

No, I simply have severe challenges finding a nickel's worth of difference between GOP and RAT ideology where the rubber meets the road:

Constitutional forebearance, smaller government, traditional American values/culture, robust border-defense, etc.

The GOP is more than willing to pander to the RINOs instead of persuading a nation - a pattern that has brought us the current predicament.

[Kryptonite]

So your answer to the filibuster is do nothing but vote Republican.

I figured as much months ago. G'Night.

[Jim Robinson]

How about abortion? Or Guns? Or National Security? Or homsosexual marriage? Or homosexual perversion forced down your kids throats? Or God being ruled unconstitutional? Or subjection to environmentalists? Or subjection to the United Nations? Or constitutional amendment by the courts? Or wealth redistribution through taxation? Or tax increases rather than tax cuts. Or national defense, etc, etc, etc. If you don't see any differences between the two parties standing on these issues then you are totally clueless.

[Jim Robinson]

Horse hockey!

[Jim Robinson]

Obviously, you haven't bothered to read my comments.