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.

[LTCJ]

Wrong. There is simply a spectrum of political opinion in both parties. And whether we like it or not, the vast majority of Americans are neither to the far right or the far left of the spectrum, but scattered around the middle.

Debatable - assumes a normal distribution. There are those, including myself, that believe the electorate is bimodal and becoming increasingly so. If this is true, the first party to recognize the fact and target their true central tendancy will have a huge strategic advantage.

[ARCADIA]

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

I think there are alot of people who feel this way. You may want to get yourself out of the way less ye be trampled.

[Sid Rich]

Everything you say is true...but complain about the President or party and you're anathema. As long as the flags are waving and we're shooting some people somewhere around the world, a good chunk of the GOP will consider Bush a "conservative."

[Dan from Michigan]

scattered around the middle

What's the 'middle'????

[finnman69]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942488/posts?page=185#185

To: jpl

Oh well. Guess we all have our faults. Trusting people I know and have been through the trenches with (so to speak) is one of mine. I have a lot of good friends who don't care much for Bush. Some I try to persuade otherwise, some I don't. We also have a lot of DU trolls and also some not so friendly so-called right-winger types posting a lot of leftist garbage and propaganda and those guys are more likely to be shown the door. Some people you can trust and tolerate more from than others and that's just the way it is.

185 posted on 07/08/2003 11:17 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)

[rogerthedodger]

"But Mr. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adams! If we don't remain loyal to King George, then goodness, our only choice will be some worse tyrant!"

[Joe Bonforte]

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

Perhaps so, but you made a specific charge that libertarians were calling Bush "fascist" on FR. Has anyone really done that? If so, where?

[henderson field]

Excuse me. This country was founded by English Protestants. They wrote the Constitution. If you agree with it, you're welcome to stay. If you don't, get out.

[PhiKapMom]

As soon as Ralph Reed's interview with Candy Crowley from CNN is up on the site, it needs posted.

Reed covered all these complaints and in the end the bottom line is that 96% of REPUBLICAN conservative base support the President enthusiastically. He also went on to say that without the increased spending for DoD and Homeland Security including Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget for the Country would be shrinking not growing.

Great interview. I was tipped off that Reed was going to be on and I broke my own pledge not to watch CNN.

BTW Crowley used the Cato Institute as an example of conservatives that don't appreciate Bush. The last time I heard Cato was Libertarian.

[finnman69]

I think there are alot of people who feel this way. You may want to get yourself out of the way less ye be trampled.

Good, I will be the first in line to hold open the door for them. Good Riddance. The only thing more pathetic than the Bush bashing I hear here is the fact that these losers keep saying they will pull their support from the GOP but dont actually have the conviction to do it. I can't stand non-team players. Either get with the program or get out.

[Sid Rich]

Run along and report me to fearless leader...

[finnman69]

I have seen posts like that. These people get banned and their posts pulled.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

BTW Crowley used the Cato Institute as an example of conservatives that don't appreciate Bush. The last time I heard Cato was Libertarian.

They're a breed sometimes sneeringly referred to as "Beltway libertarians". The line between their policy prescriptions and those of the conservative think tanks is often fuzzy.

[deport]

Well that can bitch and moan but President Bush is much the same today as in the campaign, imo. The scope has changed in many ways but I don't think his approach has. He'll try to reach some accord with factions and move forward. Nothing new there.

I'm sure someone will post it...... Maybe the transcript will be up later on.. who knows. I don't

[Ahban]

There are those, including myself, that believe the electorate is bimodal and becoming increasingly so

Bingo. The mushy middle are not moderates, they are people with no well-thought out position and could be persuaded to go far right or far left, depending on circumstances and who makes the case best. Is the GOP making a strong case for conservatism?

[LTCJ]

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.

Echoed to some extent by the influence of Clinton on the last election. And there was an interesting parallel in the activism over the Florida slight-of-hand attempted by the Dems. We almost had right-wingers in their 70s wielding pitchforks in the streets (hi Dad!).

Sometimes the quickest way to get a pendulum back to the right is for someone to give it a hard shove to the left.

[Sid Rich]

Are you intimating that the only way to get a Republican Congress to act conservative is to have a Democrat in the White House?

[finnman69]

Thank you for a reasoned appropriate post.

[Ahban]

finntann's "door" cliche is going to backfire on him. The Constitution Party wants you. www.constitutionparty.com

The CP chairman supposedly did a great job on Hannity and Colmes last night.

[Texas Federalist]

Hear! Hear!