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.

[Southack]

"Does this still not trouble you?"

Perhaps our posts crossed, as I covered this in #473.

Troubling is not at issue.

My dispute is with those who haven't read the actual Patriot Act legal text, yet criticize it as unConstitutional anyway.

I'd prefer to actually debate with someone who **has** read the actual legal text and yet comes to the opposite conclusion as myself. That would be a much more enjoyable debate.

But alas, the Big Lie persists, and I seem to get stuck with only the useful idiots (Lenin's term for those duped into pedling his propaganda, not my own).

[Southack]

"The smoke and mirrors used in the "Patriot" Act are the same ones employed in the IRC."

And what specific legal text do you claim constitutes those "smoke and mirrors"?

[Southack]

"Have you read Section 3103a of title 18, U.S. code?"

Would you like me to post the legal text of 3103a for you?

Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of it?

[goodseedhomeschool]

I am a Christian at heart.
I think this site may be fraudian to be sure.

[ApesForEvolution]

I have serious doubts that you ever read it other than sections I had to lead you by the nose to tonight.

As for the 'Big Lie' mularkey, the only 'Big Lie' is that the "Patriot" Act is anything but a MASSIVE usurpation of our Constitutional rights, allowing an ever growing Federocracy to basically stick their noses in whatever they wish, whenever they desire and as long as they deem fit.

It presents a big 'end-around' due process afforded Americans.

Let me know if you can't find a copy of the Field Guidance document.

[ApesForEvolution]

See post 485

[ApesForEvolution]

I've read it many times, marked up a couple copies, and I find it troubling. It is an issue. Why is it not troubling to you?

[Southack]

"As for the 'Big Lie' mularkey, the only 'Big Lie' is that the "Patriot" Act is anything but a MASSIVE usurpation of our Constitutional rights, allowing an ever growing Federocracy to basically stick their noses in whatever they wish, whenever they desire and as long as they deem fit."

Oh really?!

Please, do post the specific legal text with which **you** claim makes the Patriot Act usurp "our Constitutional rights".

This I've got to see.

[tpaine]

As I expected, my comment on -- "the actual words of our constitution, or its original principles", -- seems to have little interest to you.

Thanks.

[goodseedhomeschool]

You can go ahead and do what you do Jim Dear. I have learned more about my party (Republican) here and all the garbage that goes with it than I ever learned before I came here. Thanks to your site, I may consider changing my polital affiliation.
P.S. cancel my donation pledge that I made yesterday. I cannot support this liberal site one moment longer.
Thank you

[Southack]

"I've read it many times, marked up a couple copies, and I find it troubling. It is an issue. Why is it not troubling to you?"

I've neither claimed that it is or isn't "troubling", probably because "troubling" is a much lower standard than "unConstitutional".

My beef is with those who claim that the Patriot Act is unConstitutional, especially those who can't even post the specific legal text with which they have said issue.

[FreeReign]

"Have you read Section 3103a of title 18, U.S. code?"

Would you like me to post the legal text of 3103a for you? Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of it?

Thanks, I've seen 3103a?

Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of 3103a?

[Southack]

"As I expected, my comment on -- "the actual words of our constitution, or its original principles", -- seems to have little interest to you."

Please don't confuse an effort to avoid endless digression from a single-topic argument with that of something with "little interest to" me.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Troubling is not at issue"

Let me put it this way.

Section 213 changes the law as it applies to ALL government searches for material that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States" and is not limited to investigations of terrorist activity.

The prior law (2001) had authorized delayed notification of a search ONLY under a very small number of circumstances (such as surreptitious electronic surveillance).

The expansion of this extraordinary authority to all searches constitutes a radical departure from 4th Am. standards and, I believe, could result in routine surreptitious entries by LEOs.

You trust that Bush won't 'do it to you', but do you trust that Pres. Hillary won't?

[Southack]

"Do you have a specific Constitutional complaint with any part of 3103a?"

Not offhand.

Do you?

[tpaine]

the Big Lie persists, and I seem to get stuck with only the useful idiots (Lenin's term for those duped into pedling his propaganda, not my own).
-481-



The biggest propaganda lie, imo, is that there was a 'compellng reason' for the Patriot Act.

[ApesForEvolution]

"My beef is with those who claim that the Patriot Act is unConstitutional, especially those who can't even post the specific legal text with which they have said issue."

At which point has the 4th Am. been stretched to the point it's broken?

Recent USSC 'compelling governmental diversity interests' rulings - were they 'stretching' or did they 'break' the Constitution?

[ApesForEvolution]

BTW, I would like to see how you quote the thousands of pages of text known as the "Patriot" Act without your copy in front of you.

[Cultural Jihad]

I think this site may be fraudian to be sure.

No one is holding you down with chains, keeping you here against your will. Just send an email to Jim Robinson telling him to close your login ID, and you will be free of this site and we will be free of your fraud.

[Sir Gawain]

Hey Alan, where have you been?!

I'm not Alan. Just pointing out that whipping out that great list of accomplishments can be offset by whipping out another list of unconstitutional federal spending. That doesn't seem to bother you though.