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.

[Dog Gone]

It happens all the time. The percentage of third party supporters in the population of Freepers is much higher than the national average.

[Blood of Tyrants]

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?

Really? By fighting AGAINST unconstitutional laws? By trying to prevent the murder of 1.5 million babies each year?

[Sid Rich]

I'm starting to think a Democrat in the White House is the only way to get a Republican Congress to grow a spine and/or balls. If Clinton had tried to pass half of what Bush is pushing (particularly in health care) there would be a hue and cry not only in Congress but also here on freerepublic.

[Post Toasties]

With Bush as the engineer, the Republicans are taking us over the cliff faster than the Dems.

Not. Fortunately, some of us have memories that extend for more than two years. And I'm not anxious to see the Republican Party split simply to give the Dems a gift in 2004.

[rogerthedodger]

Well, I've voted for GWB, and I voted for his daddy. I voted for him both for state and national office. I've contributed funds too. I have not missed an election since I could legally vote, and I have punched the straight GOP ticket each time.

And things aren't getting any better--and the way the administration is acting, there is no promise that things will.

[Sid Rich]

I disagree. I think Bush is getting many legislative items passed that a Democrat would not be able to given a Republican Congress.

[arasina]

I feel like one of those blushing hosts at a nice restaurant with a jackets only policy offering you a blazer to cover your dirty smelly tank top.

LOL!

[Digger]

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.

In this "Two-Party Cartel" the Klintoon election showed ya just how low this cartel can sink. So who would you want - this give-away compassionate or Hillary. Since I don't care for either in the cartel, I will vote again for the 4th election outside the cartel. Did you hear RUSH talking about the Klintoon appointment that is out but old GW puts in one of Rhino's people to fill the position. Just when will you FReepers see this shame?

[rogerthedodger]

It is good that we still have Pharisees to turn their noses at the stench of the common folk, publicans, tax collectors, Samaritans, and such.

[Post Toasties]

And how does what you post make the 'English Protestants' you baselessly profess such huge disdain for not immigrants? Btw, since you don't seem aware of this, most US slave owners were in the south, not the north, and were scotch-irish, not English.

[You Gotta Be Kidding Me]

"In this "Two-Party Cartel" the Klintoon election showed ya just how low this cartel can sink. So who would you want - this give-away compassionate or Hillary. Since I don't care for either in the cartel, I will vote again for the 4th election outside the cartel. Did you hear RUSH talking about the Klintoon appointment that is out but old GW puts in one of Rhino's people to fill the position. Just when will you FReepers see this shame?"

More than anything, I hate dishonesty in politicians. If they wanna be a scumbag, they should run as scumbags and not hide the truth from us, either way.

[misterrob]

well aware of the fact that slavery was, at the end, a southern institution. However, those same English Protestants who signed both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, some of them were slave owners, FACT. Does seem a tad bit hypocritcal to declare that all men are created equal then whip some for not picking your cotton fast enough, no?

[misterrob]

Ah, you missed my point then. Check my post. I referenced terms like privacy (which is what abortion is based upon) and diversity as not being found anywhere in the Constitiution and yet the court seems fit to declare they are. We should complain loudly when laws that do not fit within the framework of the Constitution are created and upheld. The point I make is that we cannot ask for special treatment for our own causes.

[Zack Nguyen]

This is a well-balanced article. It does not resort to hyperbole to make it's point. National Review that they still regard Bush as a leader in certain areas (as do I) yet seriously lacking in others (as do I and others.)

[Post Toasties]

Well, if we had told the slave holder signers from the southern states to free their slaves or take a hike, there wouldn't have been an United States of America, and slavery would have persisted longer, IMO, in the South and may have spread more widely.

[Zack Nguyen]

This is a well-balanced article. It does not resort to hyperbole to make it's point. National Review makes it clear that they still regard Bush as a leader in certain areas (as do I) yet seriously lacking in others (as do I and others.)

[arasina]

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.

finnman, what the people on here want you to do is to vote for a candidate who will LOSE. (You know, a nice anarchist in Libertarian clothing.)

I voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton and if I had still lived in NYC, I would've voted for RINO Bloomberg (blech) over Mark Green (blechier). Sometimes our choices come down to that. When the Troubletarians have a viable presidential candidate with what I consider to be truly conservative views without all the wacko accoutrements, I will consider voting for that person. Doubt it will ever happen though.

[misterrob]

I disagree. Slavery was an evil institution and flew in the face of everything that the DoI and Constitution claimed to stand for. And, considering that the Founding Fathers had just fought a war over things called rights and freedom, I don't see how they could swallow that one. Politics maybe but in my thinking a complete sell out on principles, much the same thing that we complain about our current leadership.

Can you call anything a victory if you lack principles?

[arasina]

mm-hmmm

[rogerthedodger]

I think many of those Enlish (or Scotch-Irish) Protestants also realized in a (shockingly conservative) way that the whole institution couldn't be abolished overnight. Many foresaw and desired gradual manumission. Evidence of their goodwill in this direction was their concession to the non-importation clause of the Constitution. This came to fruition in later years, as the descendents of those English Protestants (i.e. Harry Lee's son) went about manumitting slaves.