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.

[finnman69]

There is a huge difference between well reasoned balanced articles like this and wacko libertarian Freepers who call Bush a fascist/socialist liberal.

[Dan from Michigan]

The party leadership there is actually publishing statements in opposition to his efforts.

Michigan's party leadership is very conservative. That said, the main reason they oppose a ballot iniative(sp) is because they don't want a massive black turnout which goes 95% for the dems.

[MEGoody]

"I actually think the Libertarians have it right."

I think they have it right in some things, wrong in others. Guess that's all part of the political spectrum you mentioned. :)

[Sir Gawain]

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.

Great job, Mr. President.

[Joe Bonforte]

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

I've been busy lately, so perhaps I've missed something. Would you perhaps have some links to posts where libertarians have called Bush "fascist"?

[Sid Rich]

Joe: It's time for conservative Republicans to abandon the party en masse. Voting for Bush after his track record is the equivalent of voting for a Democrat. The old saw "lesser of two evils" is no longer applicable.

[Sir Gawain]

That said, the main reason they oppose a ballot iniative(sp) is because they don't want a massive black turnout which goes 95% for the dems.

So they're pandering instead of standing on principle. I'm shocked!

[LibTeeth]

Re:"Why, then, can he not show some backbone on the domestic front to restrain the federal government? "

It seems obvious to me that the consistent principle being applied here is one of (external) control, while lip service is being given to the opposite ethic. This is something any true social or economic conservative should be abhorant of, as civilization is dependent on self-control.

[Sid Rich]

With Bush as the engineer, the Republicans are taking us over the cliff faster than the Dems.

[finnman69]

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

Thankfully Jim Rob is cleaning house.

[Dan from Michigan]

It's simply playing politics. I don't agree with this, but I understand it considering their job is for the GOP to win, and a high black turnout will make this from a swing state to a dem lean.

As for me, I'll be signing one of those petitions.

[rogerthedodger]

Dan, do they fear black turnout on the initiative or in later elections? Just wondering, for clarification.

I think fear of losing is a pretty poor reason to not even attempt a fight on your principles.

[Sid Rich]

Is criticism of the President not allowed on freerepublic?

[finnman69]

Joe: It's time for conservative Republicans to abandon the party en masse. Voting for Bush after his track record is the equivalent of voting for a Democrat. The old saw "lesser of two evils" is no longer applicable.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I hear Howard Dean is taking volunteers.

[Right Wing Professor]

What choice have they left us? Hitlery?, Ketchupboy, or one of their other assorted douche bags....

Well, it's a dangerous path to take, but I'd argue that in the last 50 years Jimmy Carter did more than anyone else, except Ronaldus Maximus, to further conservatism. Four years of Jimmuh moved the entire country towards the GOP.

[Sid Rich]

Nice well-reasoned response. You're a credit to the GOP.

[Dan from Michigan]

They fear a black turnout(although they won't admit it) in 2004. (Although this will likely increase white turnout as well).

I agree. I think the blacks will turn out anyway over revenge in 2000. In fact, I think this could work(if they are up for a gutter fight) to the GOP's advantage. Bash Detroit out in West MI, scare the hell out of AA opponents in Livingston County, and use social issues like guns and abortion to pull off the swing vote up North and in Macomb/Monroe counties.

"They are taking your kid's college spot..."

[rogerthedodger]

You can't say that creeping (now sprinting) socialism is the fault of just the Democrats anymore. We have a Supreme Court composed of 7 Republican appointees. We've had 15 of the last 23 years in the White House--and all the judicial appointments that entails. We have a now one-party Congress. We have had for years the majority of governorships.

And yet, is the federal government getting smaller? Are there more or fewer laws now than, say, in 1981? Is the Constitution in better or worse shape? Are we more united or divided as a nation?

[finnman69]

I feel like one of those blushing hosts at a nice restaurant with a jackets only policy offering you a blazer to cover your dirty smelly tank top.

May I suggest libertypost.org for you?

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/listarticles.cgi?114

[deport]

Great job, Mr. President.

---

Nothing new there.... glad you like it. He'll normally back the incumbent or has in the past if I remember correctly.