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.

[Matchett-PI]

BTTT

[TBP]

Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress, and the legislatures, and social spending has gone up $222 billion in just two years, even before the Republicans give us the biggest entitlement program in 35 years. They have enacted Ted Kennedy's education bill, a Democrat campaign-finance bill, farm subsidies, disaster relief on top of the relief already built into the subsidies, and so many other programs. What are they doing for us? A penny-ante tax cut that takes ten years to unroll and then starts getting repealed in year 11?

[Jim Robinson]

I doubt Bush will do that. But there is absolutely NO question about what kind of judges the Democrats will appoint! We need a complete turnover of the judiciary from top to bottom. I guarantee you that will not happen if the Democrats control the majority or even if they're in a position to block appointments.

[TBP]

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

But they don't have to. If more of us would vote our consciences, either the Republicans would move to the right or they would be replaced.

Why was the Republican Party formed to replace teh Whigs? Because the Whigs refused to take a stand on any of the major issues of the day. Well, the Republicans have done such a good job of replacing the Whigs that they have become the Whigs.

How far do they have to stray from principles before you professional Republicans see that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats?

[rogerthedodger]

I've been out this morning for work, but I'm back. I know all by debating opponents are overjoyed to know that.

It would be nice to recapture the SCt for conservatism. However, once we do that, the Left will attempt another end around. Just as in the 30s they used a strong Presidency and administrative agencies to make law, thwarting the States, the People, and Congress, and in the same manner in the 50s to today have used the Courts to make law, and have figured out they can make law by consent decree through lawsuits and lawyers, they will find another way.

Perhaps the only solution is to reconstruct the government so that there is virtually no room for it to grow powerful and abusive.

Again, Bush's lineup for the Supreme Court is looking so good to me, i.e. Mr. Gonzalez, Esq. doesn't look terribly conservative, esp. after trashing the Solicitor General's briefs in the Michigan cases.

And as you have asked, what is my plan? My plan is this, give the GOP until the next election to prove that it is the party of limited government and adherence to the Constitution. If it fails to do that, send it a message, and yes, punish it. Will that entail a loss for me personally? Probably, but it may be only temporary. I think we can stand 8 more years of the Democratic Party--however bad that may be. I know that you, Jim, understand that GWB administrations I and II, nor Mr. Justice Alberto Gonzalez, will not do one single thing to overturn Roe or protect the unborn.

It may mean sacrifice, but in the meantime, we either embolden and strengthen the GOP as the party of conservatism (and I don't mean Irving Kristol conservatism, but Washington/Adams/Kirk/Reagan conservatism), or we start on a new party. It's been done before. It can be done again.

It is a matter of a short term risk of loss for possible long term gain. We can risk another short period of loss (a strategic withdrawl or consolidation, so to speak) or we can sit idly by while both parties take us down the road to socialism and government dictatorship.

Fortune favors the bold.

[TBP]

According to Novak, that's the plan. And unfortunately, the history of Republican court appointments, even those by Reagan, says that that is exactly the kind of judge we will get. Most of today's Federal judges were nominated by Republican presidents, yet the raging liberal activism of the courts continues.

[finnman69]

Well, then, let's bring this discussion to a conclusion by summing up:

1. You claim that liberatarians on FR have called Bush a fascist.

2. The evidence for that claim is conveniently missing.

First. Quote me correctly.

I wrote in post #21 "There is a huge difference between well reasoned balanced articles like this and wacko libertarian Freepers who call Bush a fascist/socialist liberal."

Here's a collection of one of the most recent ZOTees.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940421/posts?page=3#3

The collected wisdom of TLBSHOW

"PS BUSH IS A SOCIALIST"
Hey rats you can have Bush he is one of you anyways!
Nah he is a rat and conservatives are going to dump him on your doorstep...in 2004
oh look bush is thrilled to be promoting socialism on the American People....
to be fair 19 from the gop did not kiss the Ass of Bush and voted against it.
Vote for Bush 2004 The liberals choice for President.....
Bush say hurry up and get me my socialism passed..
Sorry George but good people draw the line at your rat ways.
OH BUSH YOU ARE SUCH A RAT SOCIALIST
BUSH COULD CARE FOR HIM ITS SPEND SPEND LIKE A RAT DEMOCRAT
Wake up Bush you're finished!
Ann thinks Bush is Clinton...fact!
I won't be voting for anyone. The only way Bush gets elected is if liberal democrats vote him in.
Hey George you are being exposed day by day as a fraud WHEN IT COMES TO THE BORDERS.
Conservatives fed up with Socialist Bush...
Bush is a rat like all the democrats!
Bush Republicans are all socialist supporters and that is the bottomline. They are not conservatives they are a fraud and blind. They are a clear amd present danger to the republic.

How's that for wacko rants at FR?

[Sid Rich]

I plan on voting, but not for Bush.

[TBP]

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.

You only waste your vote when you vote for what you don't believe in. If everyone who supports our principles would unite behind a genuinely conservative party, we'd have a good chance of electing candidates who share our views. Instead, we are expected to support Arlen the Specter, those two ladies from Maine, Lincoln Chafee, and other such liberals to advance a party that betrays us at every opportunity.

And to make it worse, as Stan Evans points out, "Whenever one of our people gets in a position to help us, he ceases to be one of our people."

[finnman69]

If everyone who supports our principles would unite behind a genuinely conservative party, we'd have a good chance of electing candidates who share our views.

There is no reason this can't be done WITHIN the GOP.

[rogerthedodger]

sorry about the diction on that last post. i was in a rush to get it finished.

[ApesForEvolution]

Fair enough.

Re: Alberto Gonzalez, WH counsel - what don't you know about him?

Here is a little due diligence on Alberto.

Word from my sources at the RNC say he's the front runner for nomination as a Supreme.

If he's what Bush has in mind as an acceptable Supreme, then we are really, really wasting our time if we think that Constitutionists will be nominated by Bush to the USSC.

[ApesForEvolution]

"There is no reason this can't be done WITHIN the GOP."

Would it be if the RNC would support conservatives, you might mean. Maybe when the RNC stops receiving tacit support by conservatives, they will.

[rogerthedodger]

I will concede that GWB is neither a socialist nor a fascist. I think he is plainly a 'tory' in the newer sense of the word. Essentially, his philosophy of government is "he who governs best, governs best."

[TBP]

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership won't let it be done within the GOP. And professional Republican Kool Aid drinkers object when you try to clean out the RINOs. Might cost the party two or three votes in midtown Manhattan, you know.

[Sid Rich]

Your point is made clear by recent statements the President made about Head Start. He doesn't think it's a bad idea, the program just isn't working...he'll fix what's broken. I don't see a core philosophy of limited government in this administration.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, we'll have absolutely zero chance of rolling any of it back if we allow the Democrats to retake control. Hang on to the White House. Increase the majority in the House. Give the Republicans a filibuster proof Senate. Over the next few years replace as many liberals as possible from the courts and the congress and perhaps we will have a shot at recovering what we've lost.

The only thing the third party plans will produce (if they have any success at all) is to help the Democrats retake control. Then we'll have no chances at all. Just a wall-to-wall abortionist/homosexualist/gungrabbing America hating legislative agenda and wall to wall constitution rewriting liberal judicial activism. It's a never ending slide into oblivion.

No thank you! We've been there for a century or more. Time for change.

We now have the Whitehouse and a majority in both houses for one of the very rare times in our history. And we JUST got there! And barely got there! And it took a huge struggle and a historic Supreme Court battle to block the Democrats attempted coup! And we're barely hanging onto a slim majority as it is and it's not enough to overcome the liberals plus the moderates. We've got to continue pounding away at increasing the majority and dropping off the Rinos in the primaries as we can.

There is absolutely NO other way!

This will take several election cycles. The game has barely began and some of you want to abandon the field and surrender to the opponents at the first sign of adversity. So much for courage and intestinal fortitude, not to mention principle. Give up and turn it back to the Democrats? NUTS!

There is absolutely no way that any of today's third parties can get enough voters to elect enough Congressmen to make any difference, much less any Senators at all. And the Presidency is waaaay out of reach for any third party. How do you propose that you will ever have a controlling majority or even a minority influence if you cannot elect even one solitary Senator? C'mon guys, this is ridiculous.

Sorry, I know you guys don't like to hear it, but every conservative vote pulled away from the Republicans by a failing third party campaign is simply one more vote that will have to be pulled in from the middle or we lose to the Democrats. Either way, the very best the third parties can accomplish is keep the government steadily moving left either by helping to elect Democrats or by forcing the Republicans to pander even further to the middle for votes.

That's just the way it is folks. Sorry, but your pipe dreams of a libertarian utopia are going up in smoke.

[Southack]

"I think all those things added together amounts to whistling in the wind."

Constructing our ABM defenses so that we have protection from a North Korean nuclear ICBM attack is whistling in the wind to you?

Pray tell what in your view is **more** serious than seeing 5 U.S. metropolitan areas instantly vaporized?

Killing the Kyoto Global Warming nonsense is whistling in the wind to you? Canada is in the throws of a potential 15% decline in their standard of living due to implementing that treaty, something that former Presdient Bill Clinton was **forcing** federal bureaucracies to do via Executive Order, even without Senate approval, prior to Bush putting a stop to that madness.

Defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein in Iraq is mere whistling in the wind to you two? That's preposterous.

Signing the 1st and 3rd largest Dollar value tax cuts in the history of the world is whistling in the wind to you?!

Signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban later this year means nothing to you?!

Punishing 47 nations for not giving U.S. citizens full immunity from the International Criminal Court is mere window dressing to you?!

Telling the UN to go stuff itself over its Small Arms Proliferation Ban proposal is just whistling in the wind to you?!

Appointing uber-conservatives such as Bill Pryor to the federal bench has no value to you?!

Oh no, you two have your one issue (maybe two if you count spending). If Bush hasn't militarized our borders then everything else he does must be discredited in your views.

Good luck getting a single elected politician to take that radical of a stand on your key one-issue. Even Tancredo is willing to give credit where it is due on occassion, and he's certainly made compromises in the past that neither of you two "purists" seem to recognize any value in.

[Jim Robinson]

Yeah, right. A vote for a failing third party when it could've went to blocking a winning Democrat is a wasted vote. Sorry, but that's reality.

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know that he would be appointed much less confirmed to the Supreme Court. And neither do you.