Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Left Turn: Is the GOP conservative?
National Review ^ | July 23, 2003 issue | National Review Editorial Board

Posted on 07/10/2003 1:06:07 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3rdparty8yrsclinton; 3rdpartyratvictory; betrayal; conservatives; constitution; constitutionparty; gop; gopliberal; libertarian; losertarians; no; principle; republicans; republicrats; rinos; scotus; spending; voteprinciple
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-595 next last

1 posted on 07/10/2003 1:06:08 PM PDT by Constitutionalist Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Thank God SOMEBODY has the intestinal fortitude to write this, instead of just "cheering the Republican team on".
2 posted on 07/10/2003 1:11:38 PM PDT by You Gotta Be Kidding Me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Book her, Dano.
>

Support the finest site on the web. Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


3 posted on 07/10/2003 1:11:59 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Maybe about a third of the GOP is conservative. The problem is really with people on top, including President Bush, who sells out the conservative base for political expediency.
4 posted on 07/10/2003 1:12:07 PM PDT by Satadru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
I find the fact that this article is from the National Review interesting. Last night, I went to a discussion about how neoconservatism should be defined, and the editor of the American Conservative was accusing Ramesh Ponurru and the National Review of "selling-out."
5 posted on 07/10/2003 1:15:31 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Is the GOP conservative as compared to the Liberal Left? Is the Pope Catholic?
6 posted on 07/10/2003 1:16:02 PM PDT by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
The GOP is nothing more than the more pecuniary and less outraged auxiliary of the Dumb-ocratic party. Whatever the issue is that comes up, the GOP will be for LESS of it, but never against it. Financially (GOP never wants a tax eliminated, just lowered), morally (homosexual don't ask/don't tell policy is Ok, but outright moral condemnation will never happen), abortion (partial birth is bad and worthy of laws, but the other kind, saline, induced, etc., are kinda' ok), affirmative action (no condemnation, just mild outrage), fear of going after the Clinton duo to pay for their crimes, and the list goes on.

As much as I hate to admit it, the Dumbo-crats have fire in their belly and refuse to give an inch. The GOP will give them anything they want: witness G.W.'s cave in on all social issues. The NEA, EPA, etc., still exist and will always exist because the GOP leaders are dishrags.
7 posted on 07/10/2003 1:19:13 PM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative; AAABEST; Abundy; Uncle Bill; Victoria Delsoul; Fiddlstix; ...
Stop bashing the president! Oh wait, this is from NR, the neocon flagship. Well....it looks like NR has become....just another Bush hater! Yeah, that's it! NR was never any good! NR bad! Bush good!
8 posted on 07/10/2003 1:22:45 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (My other tagline is a Porsche)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Oh, my! How dare they criticize the president! This is all part of a strategery!

Quick, call in the gang and get this zotted!

9 posted on 07/10/2003 1:25:40 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
Back during the election, I challenged Freepers to write down what they expected of Bush and then compare results to their expectations. As I anticipated, Bush does not measure up to any reasonable expectations of a true conservative.

His handling of the War on Terror (actually a War on Islamic Fundamentalism) has gone as well as could be expected, and I give him high marks for having the courage to do the right thing in that area, despite carping from liberal media, etc. Why, then, can he not show some backbone on the domestic front to restrain the federal government? Why must spending increase faster than it ever did under Democratic presidents and Congresses?

I said during the election and I say again - if you are expecting anything of importance about the federal government to change because of Bush or the Congressional leaders, you are in for an infinite wait. It will not happen.

Now you may nevertheless say, "Well, the Democrats would be worse". I'd say that, too, is a debatable point given recent history.

I'm not ambitious enough to ask you guys to vote for alternatives, even though you are not getting what you want out of the Republicans and probably never will. But the more vitriolic third-party-bashers (especially the libertarian-bashers) could at least be polite, given that those or us who can no longer support the Republican Party have some very solid, tangible reasons for the way feel.
10 posted on 07/10/2003 1:27:24 PM PDT by Joe Bonforte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
You bad! Bush good!
11 posted on 07/10/2003 1:27:39 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (My other tagline is a Porsche)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
Oops. "way feel" = "way we feel"
12 posted on 07/10/2003 1:28:52 PM PDT by Joe Bonforte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Satadru
This country was based on a homogenious system of people of all cultures so it should be of no surprise that people don't all fit into just one or two buckets. The fact is that our society is fairly moderate with extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.

Another issue to consider is the essence of the conservative movement. Do we really want smaller and less intrusive government or do we want government that enforces a small minorities' particular concerns? We can bitch when the left seeks to use government to impose it's beliefs on us yet why is that not a double standard when the right does it? If you believe in the Constitution and what it stands for you don't get to cherry pick. If you believe in the Constitution you don't get to make up rules (without an Amendment) if they don't exist. Yet for some reason the courts seem to rule on issues with no constitutional basis. eg, Diversity and Privacy are not mentioned anywhere yet they seem to be a basis to make decisions.

I actually think the Libertarians have it right. Smaller government, individual responsibility and individual rights as long as they don't infringe upon someone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Both parties, one could argue, actually pander to the extremes in order to gain the nomination. Once they clear that part of the electoral process ever notice how centrist they tend to become?
13 posted on 07/10/2003 1:31:38 PM PDT by misterrob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
p>I find your understatement to be highly suspicious. What's wrong with "Bush is Best?"

Anything short of "Bush is a Genius!" tickles my tinfoil. And no "beat the RATS!" What's up with that?


14 posted on 07/10/2003 1:31:53 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
I think there is a disconnect between the party elites and the broad base, too. There's an article on WND today about Ward Connerly's attempts to pass a statewide law banning racial preferences in Michigan. The party leadership there is actually publishing statements in opposition to his efforts.

Everything was supposed to get better when we had the Presidency and both houses of Congress. So we all kept voting for the GOP because of that hope and the knowledge that it was the lesser of two evils. And where has that gotten us? Tell you what, intervening in Liberia ain't my idea of 'conservative.'

As a now famous maxim goes, the Dems are a train headed toward a cliff at 90 mph, the Republicans are a train headed toward the cliff at 70 mph. Either way, we're going over the cliff.
15 posted on 07/10/2003 1:35:30 PM PDT by rogerthedodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
LOL!

I didn't know you did "schtick".

16 posted on 07/10/2003 1:36:26 PM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
His handling of the War on Terror (actually a War on Islamic Fundamentalism) has gone as well as could be expected, and I give him high marks for having the courage to do the right thing in that area,

Was it that latest $20 million to the Philisitines that sold you.. The kowtowing to Saudi Arabia.. or the ignoring of our unbelievably open borders.....:)

And...I will probably vote for him again...

What choice have they left us? Hitlery?, Ketchupboy, or one of their other assorted douche bags.....

17 posted on 07/10/2003 1:37:00 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Constitutionalist Conservative
The reality is, there are no hard lines. There are various brands of conservative, liberal and 'independent'.
18 posted on 07/10/2003 1:38:16 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
"The GOP is nothing more than the more pecuniary and less outraged auxiliary of the Dumb-ocratic party."

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.

19 posted on 07/10/2003 1:39:56 PM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapMom; Dog Gone
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.


An article that goes back to the campaign and seems to remember some of the things...
20 posted on 07/10/2003 1:40:13 PM PDT by deport (On a hot day don't kick a cow chip...... only democrat enablers..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-595 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson