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.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"There is a huge difference between well reasoned balanced articles like this and wacko libertarian Freepers who call Bush a fascist/socialist liberal."

True, however...........I consider George H. Bush (Bush Sr.) to be a direction-less, blow in the wind, former President who single handedly gave Clinton the White House for at least 4 of those miserable 8 years. I wonder (out loud) just how far George W. Bush is from his father. I'm getting a cold sweat on the back of my neck as each little chink in his armor falls away and leftist causes march on.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks! This anti-Bush Bravo Sierra I am seeing on here is getting out of hand because they are posting lies not facts!

Time to start countering with facts!

[Texas Federalist]

"Good, I will be the first in line to hold open the door for them. Good Riddance. The only thing more pathetic than the Bush bashing I hear here is the fact that these losers keep saying they will pull their support from the GOP but dont actually have the conviction to do it. I can't stand non-team players. Either get with the program or get out."
______________________________________________

So Mayor Bloomberg for President!!! Right? If he's a Republican I have to support him according to your posts no matter how liberal he is. Who would you vote for in a race between Zell Miller and Lowell Wieker? The Conservative or the Republican.

You are a sheep.

[Dog Gone]

The only thing more pathetic than the Bush bashing I hear here is the fact that these losers keep saying they will pull their support from the GOP but dont actually have the conviction to do it.

My favorite line is the announced threat by a poster to withhold his vote for Bush over some new matter, when it's obvious he never voted for him in the first place and never will.

[Sid Rich]

Please post some facts that federal spending (outside of defense) is decreasing...something rather than just Reed's opinion.

[rogerthedodger]

who was that?

[finnman69]

The constipation party? LOL

even more obscure than Buchanan and the Reform party

Put it this way.

Election 20000

Ralph Nader Winona LaDuke Green Party 2,882,985 2.74%

Patrick Buchanan Ezola Foster Reform Party 449,120 0.43%

Harry Browne Art Olivier Libertarian Party 384,440 0.36%

Other - - 232,922 0.22%


You guys are the 'Other'.

[Sir Gawain]

Nothing new there.... glad you like it. He'll normally back the incumbent or has in the past if I remember correctly.

Does that make it the right thing to do? At least he could just stay silent.

[LTCJ]

Is the GOP making a strong case for conservatism?

Unfortunatly, it seems the GOP is deliberately going out of it's way to avoid being accused of conservatism. I concur with your analysis - it seems the GOP's domestic strategy is more allied to that of a chameleon that that of a lion these days.

[finnman69]

My favorite line is the announced threat by a poster to withhold his vote for Bush over some new matter, when it's obvious he never voted for him in the first place and never will.

Sort of like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles holding the gun to his own head as a hostage.

Completely absurd and stupid.

[misterrob]

Oh bullsh@t. America was built by immigrants after of course the English Protestants basically stole the land and killed anyone who got in their way. Chinese built the railroads, European immigrants (like my people) worked their way up through life doing the jobs said English Protestants (some of whom actually "owned" other of those men that they claimed God created equal) wanted no part of like working the docks, doing construction and of course the nasty public works projects.

Get off your horse.

[Joe Bonforte]

"He also went on to say that without the increased spending for DoD and Homeland Security including Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget for the Country would be shrinking not growing."

Sorry, but I believe that is incorrect. According to a report by the Cato Institute in April of this year:

"Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.

"The table at the bottom compares nondefense discretionary spending levels between Reagan and Bush. President Reagan managed to cut spending in most categories. In contrast, Bush has not only failed to match Reagan in reducing spending, spending has actually gone up across the board -- and often at exorbitant levels."

It's worth while to check that page just to look at the table at the bottom.

Also, on Congressman Dan Burton's web site is a document that contains the following:

• In the last 7 years, non-defense discretionary spending has grown by 66%

• FY 2003 alone was a 9% increase in discretionary spending over FY02

Unless Mr. Reed is getting better numbers from somewhere else, it looks to me like he's flat out wrong.

[finnman69]

I actually voted for Bloomberg over Mark Green because Mark green was a worse choice. Will I vote for him again? Depends on who is running.

I am not a sheep. You are living in a dream world.

[rogerthedodger]

I'll play the iconoclast here. Is it possible that balooning defense spending also contributes to high taxes, government bloat, centralization, and restriction of individual rights?

Leviathan can grow from military spending as easily as it can grow from redistribution. I don't think that scrutiny over the military budget is unfair, nor is the Department of Defense beyond reproach--especially when we've spent, what, about $100 billion on an undeclared war in Iraq, that has so far netted us . . . hmmmmm . . . what did we gain again??????

[Righty1]

Antwort, Nein!

[Sid Rich]

uh oh...now you've done it...criticized defense spending. You must be a DU troll /sarcasm off.

[rogerthedodger]

I must respectfully disagree in part, misterrob. My 'English Protestant' forbearers were engaged in certain jobs: i.e. clearing land and fighting with savages, starting cities and building docks in what were uncleared swamps, that others in Old Europe never fathomed to dare, lest they end up without a scalp.

[LTCJ]

Are you intimating that the only way to get a Republican Congress to act conservative is to have a Democrat in the White House?

LOL. No, that wasn't my point but, now that you mention it, it was kind of nice to see Republican Senators stand with some backbone in opposition to something...

[Joe Bonforte]

"I have seen posts like that. These people get banned and their posts pulled."

Well, then, let's bring this discussion to a conclusion by summing up:

1. You claim that liberatarians on FR have called Bush a fascist.

2. The evidence for that claim is conveniently missing.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

You might want to take a refresher course in American History.