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.

[Catalonia]

It's 'whining' with one 'n' and 'you're', not 'your'. Sheesh. You should be more careful with your language when trying to insult your betters. ;)

And regarding political recipes for disaster, it sounds to me like ApesForEvolution is merely addressing some issues that need addressing. I agree that to vote Third Party at this juncture is a big mistake, but mainstream Republican elites had better listen to the grumblers or it will cost them the election in 2008, if not sooner. Case in point: Perot in 1992. You can't blame people for being unsatisfied with the shenanigans of the mainstream political parties, which over time inevitably become more concerned with power than with principle. It's just the way things work. The parties have the responsibility to deliver what its constituency demands or suffer the consequences. You can throw tantrums all you want about how people are so foolish to vote Third Party, but ultimately the blame is with the Republican leadership for debacles such as Perot, not the rank and file. Listen and respond, or lose power. That's how it works in a representative democracy, and that is the most intelligent move, not mindless goose-stepping to the Republican Party line. (Still, I understand that for some it's the best the can do.) Make the elites fear losing their base and they will respond.

Capiche?

(Oh by the way, if you want to understand how I think of political parties, just think of my handle -- Catalonia -- as in 'Homage to Catalonia' by George Orwell. Now there's a guy who understood politics and human nature. Why don't you educate yourself by reading it, and maybe we could have a discussion in private about how it might relate to contemporary politics.)

Thanks for listening.

[Sabertooth]

We can not disclaim all responsibility for the damage that has been done to that noble document, however. Voting for third party candidates bought us eight years of torment and tearing of our Constitution under Clinton. Conservative stay-at-homes contributed to the foil! And some of us who now know the truth were once pawns of the opposition.

I didn't vote for any third-party candidates in 1992, I voted for President Bush, who ran a loser campaign in which he acted ashamed of being a conservative, and couldn't keep many of the votes he won in 1988.

Go ahead, blame the voters for not buying what he was selling. It's just good business sense: when business shrinks, the customer is at fault.

You think by doing this you're gonna appeal to voters on the fence? People have differing motivations when they get into the booth, and an insistance on lock-step isn't going to appeal to many who aren't already sold.

If Republicans want conservatives to vote for them, they need to come up with more incentive than they have thus far, apparently. The blithering shame of it all is that when they get the conervatives to cast their ballots, the GOP wins. Seems like a good formula, why is it so hard for the Republican party to get it right?

[Gary Boldwater]

Your data is very well presented and most helpful. It clearly shows that if Bush abandons his conservative base he stands a very good chance of losing the election.

Why is Bush making the choice to abandon his conservative base?

[.30Carbine]

Seems like a good formula, why is it so hard for the Republican party to get it right?

Why is Bush making the choice to abandon his conservative base?

I don't know the answer to either of these questions. I answer to God for my conscience and my actions alone, not the President's and not the Republican Party's. I will vote Republican.

[CWOJackson]

Well when I see a better I'll be careful not to insult them. You...your kind of like gum on a shoe. A mild annoyance but far beneath real contempt.

[Southack]

"You 'mock' the unrefuted truth of the above constitutional infringements.."

No, I'm simply mocking you avoiding debating the **actual** text of the Patriot (and other) Acts, while you instead repeat urban myths about such laws.

You see, you can take the actual legal text from any of those laws that you mention, and I'll be happy to debate the Constitutionality of any particular sentence, passage, paragraph, section, or entire document.

And I can be happy debating such things because I don't fear the truth.

In contrast, the sole reason that you won't post the actual legal text of any of the Acts that you "feel" are unconstitutional is that you do fear the truth. Of course, that's not abnormal. Most people do fear the unknown, and you haven't read the actual legal text of any of the documents that you are criticizing, I'd wager.

So rather than debate the actual legal text, you repeat, tirelessly, what you've been programmed by various anti-American masters to spew forth, i.e. that all of those laws are unconstitutional (which is incorrect).

And what causes me to mock you is that you can't see that you are being **used** as a tool to propagate the Big Lie (i.e. a lie told so often that people start to accept it as fact).

Of course, that's normal human behavior. Tell people often enough that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, and not only will people who haven't even read the Patriot Act's actual legal text start to believe that it is unconstitutional, but they will further go on to find **comfort** in repeating that myth when they do it themselves.

And that fact is worthy of mocking. It's fun to mock those who repeat myths as if they were facts. It's fun to mock people who don't even realize that they are being used. It's fun to mock people who find more comfort in believing something that has been told to them rather than doing the actual research themselves.

And that's why I mock you.

[tpaine]

So rather than debate the actual legal text, you repeat, tirelessly, what you've been programmed by various anti-American masters to spew forth, i.e. that all of those laws are unconstitutional (which is incorrect)
-s hack-



I've been arguing, in detail, against various unconstitutional 'acts' of congress for over five years here at FR.
Here's a typical FR thread on bank secrecy, where that anti-american Hyde spews forth, in his agreement the act is in part unconstitutional. Mock him:



Henry Hyde cosponsors Bank Secrecy Sunset Act
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a375f1cd053fa.htm

[Southack]

Let's keep this to one thread, preferably to one topic, shall we.

Just post the actual legal text of the Patriot Act (or other Acts if you absolutely must) that you feel is unconstitutional, and I'll be happy to debtate it with you.

But until you are willing to debate the actual legal text, I'll continue to mock your attempts at digression, among other such humorous antics.

[RJayneJ]

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

[tpaine]

"You see, you can take the actual legal text from any of those laws that you mention, and I'll be happy to debate the Constitutionality of any particular sentence, passage, paragraph, section, or entire document."
-hack-


I posted, as an example, an FR article showing that many US Congressmen have severe doubts about the constitutionality of the banking act, only one of those 'laws that I mentioned'.

Now you say, "Let's keep this to one thread, preferably to one topic, shall we."


You have a big 'thing' about thinking you can control the argument, don't you?
Confronted with irrefutable facts, you insist upon ignoring them.

Silly tacic, as it destroys your credibility, just as I and others noted earlier.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Let's keep this to one thread, preferably to one topic, shall we.

By "one topic", do you mean something like the original topic of this thread? :-)

[ApesForEvolution]

Did you notice the question of the day today?

[LibTeeth]

Wow. 'Guess I struck a nerve there. You misunderstood much though. I'm not criticizing interventionism as a policy, only what I see as an inadequate justification for carrying out a bogus UN mandate against Iraq. I'm sure we could find plenty of sovereign reasons to squash the Iraquis.

I see pre-emption as an excuse, and a fundamentally illegitimate one at that, one that sets particularly bad precedent. When the pendulum swings again to a socialist regime (we are raising a country of adolescents bred to be co-dependent on government as parent), I'm sure we'll see this precedent applied again and FR will be fairly squealing in opposition.

Your 2 alternatives to interventionism are a false dichotomy. But, as I stated, I'm not against interventionism in general; it's a logical fallacy to argue from the specific to the general. There's a rock in Mecca that would be glowing right now if I had my way. Something smaller and more appropriate would suffice for your additions to my list. Trust me, my foreign policy views don't find any expression in the predominatly left wing media. I see a lot of traitors waiving flags these days. My point is that total domination of Iraq won't gain us much at home, particularly as we are loosing against the insurgency on our southern border.

You are right, the Republic likely died around 1913, but I would hardly consider a desire to return to just governance and a coherent guiding philosphy anything so trivial as waxing nostalgic.

As to the bulk of your name dropping, that came off as the sort of ad hominem, guilt-by-association tactic that I largely associate with liberal debate tactics when they go after positional groups like the NRA. Sorry, there's no 'we' here for that to resonate with. I'm sorry you mistakenly associated my ideas with some larger context I haven't yet explored. The biped with a back ache doth protest too much, me thinks.

[finnman69]

That's not porn. Hell, Stuff and Maxim magazine has racier stuff than that on their covers.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ah, well. John Dean is such a good man to turn to, when you need to be told what to think.

Think the immigrants who get their blue cards and then green cards and lastly their citizenship and right to vote will watch Telemundo and notice Gonzalez's confirmation hearings?

I think they will.