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.

[ApesForEvolution]

I've added up the Republican appointments to the court and the batting average is only slightly better than the RATS.

[ApesForEvolution]

So, for the record and pointedly, would you oppose President Bush nominating Alberto to become a Supreme?

[ApesForEvolution]

So now if I don't fawn over everything Bush does, I'm an 'agent provateur'??

[Southack]

"And yet you nor ANYONE has ever contested the un-Constitutional 'sneek-a-peak' powers granted by the "Patriot" Act."

There is no unConstitutional language written anywhere in the Patriot Act. I've read it. I know.

Bashing the Patriot Act is simply regurgitating left-wing propaganda, ala the art of the Big Lie (something repeated often enough will become accepted as fact).

You feel differently? Shoot, you haven't read the Patriot Act or else you'd already know that I'm right.

But you are welcome to post any or all of the actual text of the Patriot Act here that you contend is unconstitutional.

Not that you'll bother (as in, you can't find any such language).

[ApesForEvolution]

I am treating you as the enemy because I question how anyone that sees a big, stinky mess in the living room, regardless who left it, won't be offended if it's a Bush or a Republican?

I lay down with marxist RATS and parrot their talking points? I thought the RAT talking points this week were about (worthless issue to take up btw) the 'big Iraqi nuclear lie' that Bush quoted in the SotU address, referring to British intelligence reports?

I am NOT treating you as the enemy, but you are rather being hyper sensitive when I ask you simple questions about Republicans, Constitutional adherence/governance and potential Bush nominees to the USSC.

The site loses credibility when objectivity is sold out and I prefer the site to maintain credibility.

People lurking here that aren't Republicans-no-matter-what aren't all stupid and there is no 'blue line' in the GOP that I'm aware of where we cover for everyone, all the time, regardless.

[ApesForEvolution]

Once again, you not so artfully dodge trying to explain how the 'sneek-a-peek' powers granted to LEOs in the "Patriot" Act are Constitutional.

[ApesForEvolution]

You said you've read it, so let's talk 'sneak-a-peek' powers in the "Patriot" Act. I'll be up for awhile.

[Southack]

"Once again, you not so artfully dodge trying to explain how the 'sneek-a-peek' powers granted to LEOs in the "Patriot" Act are Constitutional."

It's no dodge. The entire Patriot Act as written is Constitutional. It's legal. It violates nothing.

You certainly haven't shown any evidence in the legal text that would persuade me differently.

[goodseedhomeschool]

OOPs! I really made a fraudian typo there, lol. Sorry.

[goodseedhomeschool]

I just looked on a Texas constitution party site today out of curiosity. It looked very promising. No one would answer my previous question so I had to search myself. I am learning more and more each day Praise God.

[CWOJackson]

For someone who claims to believe in evolution you sure are doing your best to try for extinction.

[ApesForEvolution]

These are some of the Constitutional issues that I have with the "Patriot" Act, just for starters. You tell me where you want to start.
(Warning: sacred cows could be gored in this exploration process. Faint-hearted lurkers beware.)

The "Patriot" Act amended the following legislation:

*Bank Secrecy Act
*Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
*Electronic Communications Privacy Act
*Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
*Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
*Money Laundering Act
*Money Laundering Control Act
*Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute
*Wiretap Statute (Title III)

I guarantee you this - if you were suspicious as to the timing and un-Constitutional krinton Domestic Terrorism Bill that was (miraculously) enacted upon the heels of the OKC bombing, you're going to love what the "Patriot" Act is about.

Game on.




*Immigration and Nationality Act


*Right to Financial Privacy Act
*Fair Credit Reporting Act

[Sir Gawain]

I have a list too.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

none of you have ever presented a viable plan to advance the conservative cause that has any chance of succeeding without first giving up and handing the government back to the avowed baby-killers and America-hating socialists.

You are correct. It's a Catch 22 situation. I have been asking our Lord to provide us with a viable Third that is electable. In the meantime, we do what we can. The only argument I have is that Conservatives shouldn't be silenced for holding the Republican's feet to the fire. It's hypocritical to crucify one party yet give the other a walk. Perhaps by doing so, we can make a difference. They all need to be re-elected. Wholesale caving in isn't the answer either. It's a damnable position to be in.

[ApesForEvolution]

Are your posts on this thread the best you've got?

As for my handle, you obviously have no clue what it's saying.

[Kryptonite]

Jim, you understand, don't you, that my profile page highlights criticism of a decision that a supreme court with 7 of 9 members being Republican appointees has refused to overrule?

Why should anyone like me be happy with these Republican appointees?

[ApesForEvolution]

Love your tagline.

For some reason, I can't view the link.

Can you post the pertinent page or info? Thanks.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Just tell me once again how much worst Hillary could be?

Much, much worse. We have her and Reno to thank for the social destruction of this nation during the 8 year reign. They've corrupted the Education system, the Judiciary, not to mention increased Infanticide and the persecution of Christians and their ideals all across this land. Under the guise of Free Speech they have allowed all manner of corruption and social evil. I shudder to think what she could accomplish given the head position. May God help us.

[CWOJackson]

"Are your posts on this thread the best you've got?"

Oh not at all, I just don't like to waste much on the terminal. Besides, you are doing such a magnicicant job on your own.

[Floyder]

hehe, its amazing you blame all those problems on one person.