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]

You would make a fine Republican nominee to the USSC.

I'm sure you can find no gain in commenting, because semantics and parsing of the Constitution are just part of your game.

You aren't a Constitutionist, you just like to argue like one.

You either, out of intellectual dishonesty, avoid the issues presented by the "Patriot" Act's practical treatment as enforced by the Guidance written to correspond with it or you aren't aware of how this law can 'legally' be carried out and enforced, which is equally dangerous.

Have a good night. (Here's your opportunity to hurl a condescending post my way or beat your chest - that's your style, isn't it?)

[tpaine]

Whatever.

I have no real interest in 'continuing', seeing that you declared yourself the winner at #513.

I'll leave you to your delusuions. Thanks.

[Southack]

"You either, out of intellectual dishonesty, avoid the issues presented by the "Patriot" Act's practical treatment as enforced by the Guidance written to correspond with it or you aren't aware of how this law can 'legally' be carried out and enforced, which is equally dangerous."

No, I've actually read the actual legal text, and unlike you, I don't have to invent false critiques.

You are welcome to post the **ACTUAL LEGAL TEXT** with which you claim you can show is unConstitutional.

But running around without posting such text, claiming that some as yet unposted text is unconstitutional, and that anyone who doesn't take your word for all of this alleged "unconstitutionality" is intellectually dishonest - simply won't cut it.

Where's your text? Where's the unconstitutional legal text of the Patriot Act? Why can't you post that specific text?

[Southack]

"I'll leave you to your delusuions. Thanks."

Of the many differences between us, one that stands out is that I've actually posted the legal text of Section 213 of the Patriot Act, while you've posted not a word from it.

I've quoted the actual words in the legal text of the Patriot Act, while in stark contrast you've posted words such as "sneak-a-peak" which you thought were in the Patriot Act, yet in reality were not in it at all.

Face it, you've been busted. Your little bluff has been called, and because it has been called you've been exposed as not being able to support your wild-eyed claim against the Patriot Act.

And you are welcome to run off. You won't be the first to have fled an intellectual drubbing.

You are also welcome to stick around, especially if you want to post and debate the actual legal text of the Patriot Act.

Either way.

I leave it up to you.

[Southack]

Ouch. My mistake. I didn't realize that I was posting to you rather than to apesforevolution.

Please disregard the references to "sneak-a-peak".

[tpaine]

Sure, I'll be glad to disregard the references to "sneak-a-peak".


But that still leaves a lot of other delusions..
Good luck kid, enjoy your fantasies.

[Southack]

Delusions? Fantasies?

Yet I'm the only one posting the actual legal text.

While those who bash the Patriot Act post nothing of the kind.

Hmmm...

Makes one wonder just how fast the Big lie can be debunked if all it takes is asking for people to post the actual legal text rather than wild-eyed urban myths.

[tpaine]

The constitutional repugnancy of the 'patriot act' is not an urban myth.

[Southack]

Show me the actual text with which you have a Constitutional problem.

[tpaine]

Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/917218/posts


An urban myth?

[Ken H]

the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search.

Allowing authorities to act as if they have a warrant before they actually have a warrant seems like a pretty big change from current procedure.

Isn't a court supposed to approve a warrant first?

[deport]

As I've said, the O'Connor/Gonzales theory comes from one of Novak's columns.

---

And you believe 'The Prince of Darkness" unnamed sources? LOL. When's the last time Novak has been given a leak?

I take you've not read any of the opinions Justice Gonzales issued regarding the Parential Notification cases. It maybe enlighting if you haven't.....

[Catalonia]

Holy s***! That's the Mother of All Government-Spending-Too-Much Lists! Great post!

[Catalonia]

Your brand of so-called conservatism is exactly what the DU would love to see.

Your brand of intolerance is exactly what the DU fears, and is exactly the stereotype they portray. The man is bringing up some legitimate points. You need to answer his questions or shut the EFF up. If you can't adequately answer his points or anybody else's than you are required either to pipe down or to change your position. We're not liberals here. I expect more intelligence out of conservatives, whatever their stripes.

Thanks for listening.

[Catalonia]

You are welcome to continue this debate in my email. My intention was to keep the clutter on this thread to a minimum, as such clutter is frequently used by those losing intellectual arguments as an excuse for changing the subject.

Too bad. I was learning a thing or two about the Patriot Act.

[Southack]

"Isn't a court supposed to approve a warrant first?"

That hasn't changed. Only when it is displayed in some rare instances.

[Southack]

"An urban myth?"

Precisely. That's why those attacking it as unConstitutional can't or don't cite the actual legal text of the Patriot Act. The myth surrounding the Act has become bigger than the Act itself.

[tpaine]

You are in denial.

Legislators in two states, and in dozens of local governments, plus arguably hundreds of thousands of your peers, perhaps millions, express serious constitutional reservations about the entire thrust of the 'Act'.

Yet you insist its repugnancy is urban myth.

Dream on.

[balrog666]

Four years of Jimmuh moved the entire country towards the GOP.

I agree - even more so than 8 years of disgusting Klintoon behavior. We may have been outraged and riled up in the 90's but most people didn't even pay attention. In fact, most people don't pay attention, ever, unless you hit them in the wallet (like Jimmuh did).

[ApesForEvolution]

Sorry, you defaulted and I won when you admitted that the "Patriot" Act, (certainly not the most aggregious, nonetheless) -

"Certainly not at the point to which we're taken by the Patriot Act, which still requires a Court to approve a warrant, even if said warrant is only produced **after** the search."

If in your living Constitution world, where Justices like O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, etc. rewrite the document every day, producing warrants after searching is un-Constitutional. And I don't care what bogus USSC decisions you cite. The USSC has been in dereliction of their Constitutional duties for a long, long time.

If JBTs can slip into anyone's house they want, whenever they want, and THEN justify it later for a judge to rubber stamp, that's not Constitutional America Southack.