Left Turn: Is the GOP 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.

There are two alternatives to interventionism.

The first of these is abandoning the sovereignty of the United States, accepting a one-world federal government as a transition to a one-world dictatorship and all of the evils implied therein.

The second is the imbecilic neo-isolationism which the likes of Justin Raimondo and his antiwar.com website and comrades and Pravda columns advocate in concert with the handful of personal eccentrics and fantasywonks at a handful of places like the Rockford Institute.

I take it that you oppose interventionism, oppose the UN option (else what are you doing here?) and embrace the Raimondo/Fleming/TRC/AW.com/Pravda option. Well, you are welcome to the delusions that died at Pearl Harbor that we are able to be merely Fortress America without an aggressive military and foreign policy. You should go to bed every night only after prayers of thanksgiving to your Father in heaven that there are practical Americans protecting your cocoon.

Personally, the day will NEVER dawn when I will find myself in political alliance with anyone who smacks of neo-Neville Chamberlainism. Now, all few hundred of you who dissent from conservative orthodoxy in foreign policy (i.e. interventionism) go nominate Pat Buchanan again and satisfy yourselves with the handful of votes that result while actual conservatives such as those who prevailed in Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, and College Republicans, inter alia, in the drive to nominate and elect Ronald Reagan (Ronaldus Maximus) who also managed not to try to revive deservedly dead isolationism, will do the nominating and electing.

Maybe you can make an alliance with the veterans of Students for a Democratic Society and with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and with the Common Cause folks and with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom(?) and with the Libertarian Party crowd and with International ANSWER and with Jane Fonda, Ramsay Clark, The Hildebeest, Ted the Swimmer, Ketchup Boy, Howard Dean, Dennis the Menace Kucinich (whom Raimondo says he could vote for. Is Kucinich married?), with the Palestinian "Liberation" Organization, and with all the other public nuisances who share your bottom line as to what the foreign and military policy of the United States ought to be, including the many sycophants of the Arkansas Antichrist. Remember that Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin and David Dellinger and Huey P. Newton are gone now but Bernardine Doehrn (Bernardine the Radical Queen) is still available, as is Mark Rudd.

A pre-emptive strike against the Demonratic National Committee means beating them in elections before they get a chance to wield power. The interventionist GOP has held control of Congress since 1995 and the White House and Pentagon since 2001. The Supreme Court is next. If you hope to restore the Constitution that is the only practical hope you have but, hey, if it is more important to run the Charles Lindbergh Memorial Society for Folly and Futility in Foreign Policy than to strengthen the Republican Senate Caucus enough to wipe our feet on Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle (in deserved defeat), Ted the Swimmer, Ketchup Boy, Barbara Boxer, DiFi, Patty Murray (in deserved defeat) Maria Cantwell, Barbara Mikulski, et al., as we reform the SCOTUS, have a party. What difference do your numbers make?

I just can't wait to see the paleo commandos in action against the NEA, the NPR/PBS and CBS (what about ABC, CNN, NBC?) especially since their foreign policy views are indistinguishable from your own. Maybe the threads that you describe get pulled because they are not at all conservative. It is hard to imagine anything described as "antiwar" as being even patriotic much less conservative. Conservatives ought not to be bashful about pinning the anti-American label on the donkeys and their foreign policy allies. I watched Ron Paul at length during special orders last night. It is very sad what has happened to a once promising Member of Congress, seduced by the obsolete side of conservative history.

The founding moments of paleoism were nicely described by David Frum (not a hero of mine but he wrote a fine article on this) as rooted in the disgruntled spasms of the paleo eccentrics and nerds who were not ready for prime time jobs under Reagan and were in a purple huff over the nerve of Ronaldus Maximus to ignore them as totally marginal and utterly ineffective and quite useless. Once again we have a conservative administration and those who could not obtain a job within it if their lives depended on it are finding the fault in their stars rather than in themselves. Ho Hum, what else is new?

Tom Fleming will continue with Srdj (sp.? Can it be spelled?) Trifkovic (whoever or whatever kind of Serbian Nationalist looney tune he may be) to think that America exists to support Serbian dictators. Justin Raimondo will lament the loss of romantic opportunities suggested by dead bodies on battlefields while absolutely dishonestly claiming to be not merely a conservative, mind you, but a "reactionary." He is actually a raging social revolutionary wind tunnel without a conservative credential to his name. Raimondo writes in the style of Lyndon Larouche trying to persuade us that Lizzie II controls the international narcotics trade. I don't remember reading of Donald Rumsfeld (a member of the Rockford Institute Board all the way back when it was pro-American and genuinely conservative) ever expressing support for Timothy McVeigh. I haven't either.

Finally, the Republic over which you wax nostalgic has been dead for nearly a century. Resurrection of that Republic with modifications to take into account modern technology and the dangers posed by modern technology may be possible but there is going to have to be a lot more effective force applied that appears likely among "paleos" in the foreseeable future or ever. Meanwhile, we have plenty to do to make this nation and this world safe for Americans and to make some incremental progress against the court system which has destroyed our constitution, nearly destroyed our civilization and seeks to destroy our way of life.

"Have you read the 'Patriot' Act? Are you aware of the 'sneak-a-peek' language (that is no law) in it? Are you aware that much of it is presided over by a secret court?"

Yes, I've read the Patriot Act. I found inside it not a **single** unConstitutional sentence.

But facts haven't stopped legions of anti-Bush foes from repeating the Big Lie.

You're welcome to correct me. You're welcome to show me evidence that I may have overlooked, but I seriously doubt that you can find a single unconstitutional sentence in the entire legal language of the Patriot Act, as passed.

But here's where it gets interesting. You see, if you had already the Patriot Act, then either you'd know that I was right, or else you'd have already posted the offending legal text. So it's a safe bet on my part that you've been repeating what you've been told without researching the matter on your own.

And I encourage such research on your part. For one thing, if you are intellectually honest, then you will come away from this issue with an entirely new perspective.

But just to keep it simple, let me state that you can't find a single unconstitutional sentence in the Patriot Act. It's been demonized more than McCarthy's Communist Hunt or taking guns into schools.

You've tried to change the focus of the subject. You claimed that no Republican would take even the slightest risk to overturn Roe v Wade, yet after I debunked that by showing Bush's appointment to the 11th Circuit Court, you backpedaled, squirmed, and tried to dance over to the issue of **confirmation**.

Face it, I destroyed your claim. Bill Pryor will overturn Roe v Wade, given the chance. He is prima facia evidence against your wild-eyed claim.

"No one, not one man or woman, in the Republican leadership will take the least risk to overturn Roe. When was the last time you heard any of the top 20 Republicans say that Roe was an atrocious example of judicial legislation and that it should be overturned? For that matter, who among the top 20 of the leadership can even articulate why Roe is bad law??????"

...

348 posted on 07/11/2003 4:14 PM CDT by rogerthedodger

Where the heck have **YOU** been hiding?!

Here's President Bush's nomination to the 11th federal Circuit Court, Bill Pryor:

The left-wing People for the American Way (PFAW) published the following quotes, among others, from Pryor on its website. PFAW intended them to be a distillation of the reasons he should not be confirmed. Conservatives reading them might stand up and cheer.

On Roe v. Wade

"the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history"

...

352 posted on 07/11/2003 4:19 PM CDT by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

Is Bill Pryor confirmed?

Is Bill Pryor in the House, Senate, White House, state house, or governor's mansion? Does he lead the RNC?

Bill Pryor is not going to pass the amendments or the laws that will overturn Roe or set up a legal confrontation with it. He will sit on the 11th Circuit, if permitted, and may see an abortion case sometime in the next 20 years. Meantime, six justices of the Supreme Court will stamp "writ of certiorari denied" on any appellate brief that reaches them on the constitutionality of restrictions on abortion.

359 posted on 07/11/2003 4:29 PM CDT by rogerthedodger

BLAIR WINS BACKING OF OLD FRIEND CLINTON
Fri Jul 11 2003 20:53:48 ET

Prime Minister Tony Blair received the impassioned support of his close friend Bill Clinton in his battle to redefine left-wing politics.

The ex-US President echoed Mr Blair's warnings that unless politicians of the left embraced change they would face losing power to the resurgent right.

Speaking last night at a lavish dinner in the City of London's Guildhall at the opening of a conference on the future of centre-left politics, Mr Clinton thanked the Prime Minister for proving that the "third way" could be a success.

"I'm grateful to you sir for continuing to prove every day that economic prosperity and social progress go hand in hand," Mr Clinton said.

But he warned of the twin dangers of a reinvigorated "pro-change conservatism" that had seen recent electoral successes in the US and parts of Europe, and critics from within the ranks of left-wing supporters.

"Since we have proved that the third way works everywhere it's been given a fair chance, why are we under attack from the left in our own countries," he said.

The Prime Minister has had to take on his own backbenchers in the House of Commons in recent months over controversial plans for foundation hospitals, the Iraq war, and faces further rebellions over university tuition fees in the future.

Mr Clinton urged the critics of the Prime Minister's reforms to act as the "conscience" of centre-left governments.

"I say to you there's a fourth way out there. It's not a do nothing conservatism, it's an aggressive pro-change conservatism.

"It survives on enemies and attack and triumphs our evidence and argument.

"It's first value is power and they are better at getting it and keeping it than most of us," he said.

"If we want to prevail we will have to learn how to make our case better.

"We're living in a new world in which we will be swallowed whole if we do not and all the evidence of the good we have done will be lost if we give in to inter-party squabbles on the left and lay down in the face of attacks on the right," he said.

"We can never rest on our laurels."

Guests included the Prime Minister's wife Cherie, Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand and a host of ministers and thinkers from left-wing politics around the world.

Diners enjoyed poached haddock followed by fillet of lamb with sage and red onion crust. For dessert they were served an ensemble of exotic fruits.

The meal was served with bottles of Chateau Tour St Bonnet 1996.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.