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.

[Jim Robinson]

None that have a prayer of a chance at success.

[Sid Rich]

I don't think roger will be able to respond as he's been banned.

[ApesForEvolution]

It sounds more like the fact that I am pointing out Bush's lack of Constitutional care in his governance, which rubs people that worship Bush and the GOP the wrong way, makes me a RAT.

That's a dirty smear tactic which is often used when facts can not be refuted.

I'm simply interested in whether or not you can objectively view Bush and the GOP, when they get it wrong from a 'Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America.' viewpoint - and not simply 'see no GOP evil, hear no GOP evil and say no GOP evil'.

Independent thought appears to be the casualty once again when 'independent thought' points out Bush and the GOP's faults.

[Jim Robinson]

As have you. Take your trolling elsewhere. Buh bye.

[Jim Robinson]

And I suppose you believe you'll have better luck with the Democrats controlling the agenda?

[goodseedhomeschool]

That is what I always though too. We do need to ban together if we want to improve America.

[Jim Robinson]

Due diligence from John Dean and the NYT, et al? Give me a break! If you continue regurgitating the Democrat marxist dogma, your welcome will wear mighty thin.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Anyone who claims to have an inside Bush source is either delusional or manipulative. Bush's staff and confidants, those in the know, don't leak

LOL.....In my business and from my experience, everthing leaks. We have a saying, even water tight pipes weep.......

[A Navy Vet]

"Remember, Blackmun was a Republican appointee and he wrote Roe v. Wade. O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, and Kennedy are all Republican appointees. If this is what Republicans are going to put on the Court, then there is no point in choosing them over Democrats."

That's why the SCOTUS issue is not at the top of my list. Besides, does anyone really think the spineless Repup Senate is going to fight against the dems for another conservative Thomas?

[Jim Robinson]

Oh ye of little faith. What kind of judges can you possibly hope for from the Democrats?

[NeoCaveman]

That's why the SCOTUS issue is not at the top of my list. Besides, does anyone really think the spineless Repup Senate is going to fight against the dems for another conservative Thomas?

So with Republicans you have a 50% chance or so of getting a good conservative but with Democrats you have a 0% chance. I'll take the better odds.

[goodseedhomeschool]

That is a good point.

[ApesForEvolution]

Well, maybe.

The last major conservative dormancy, as a result of the GOP hosing conservatives, gave us krinton.

It was followed by a severe right turn by the GOP, regaining confidence and power in the base by moving back to the 'right', that gave us the Class of '94.

Every time the GOP hoses conservatives, and frankly the Constitution/America's path to restoration in general, they only 'get it' when they (and all of us ultimately) 'pay a price'.

In what cases, that I'm obviously not familiar with, has the GOP done the right thing without serious clamoring, and sometimes neglect in fund-raising, grassroots activims and at the polls, by conservatives concerned with Constitutional adherence/governance?

Maybe you should truly consider - if this site's 'mission statement' is sincere, that if we get 4 more years of Constitution-bashing for putting our trust and votes in the GOP again - finding and backing a new party which holds Constitutional ideals as the front line and persuades/educates people, as this site sometimes does, versus compromises principle and buys votes?

I'm being sincere Jim.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Constructing our ABM defenses so that we have protection from a North Korean nuclear ICBM attack is whistling in the wind to you?

Look hack, we have the worlds most sophisticated nuculear submarines roaming the seven seas.

You know as well as the Koreans that if they ever decided to commit mass suicide, this would be the fastest way, there wouldn't be enough left of North Korea to put in a fortune cookie, and they fully understand this.

[ApesForEvolution]

We both know that, don't we. Money talks and bs walks in our endeavors...

[ApesForEvolution]

As I said, Jim, the source was the only factually driven (did you read it?) source that I could find on short notice. I didn't repeat it, so why are you? If you would provide a source that is factually driven and acceptable to you re: Alberto, I'd be glad to actually read it. Again, the past conservative reviews of Alberto, which I will endeavor to locate, were even LESS flattering of Bush's pick to guide his vetting processes for nominations/appointments and legal guidance.

Is this why you don't post anything about Alberto and continue to smear me a RAT?

If my posting history in ANY way reflects me as ANYTHING but a 'conservative', Constitutional-America-Loving patriot who understands God, Country and Family, then you haven't read any of my posts but are simply dodging the salient points I'm making, all because I dare say that Bush and the GOP find the Constitution a convenience when it's politically expedient.

All I ask for, sincerely, is that you address the contents of what I post with some modicum of respect and thought.

[ApesForEvolution]

I hate it when people post and run without forewarning that they are leaving, so, I bid you farewell for the evening as my life takes me away from the puter for awhile.

[Jim Robinson]

Yep. You got it. People of little faith got snookered by a pro con-artist. Ross Perot. And we got Clinton. Eight years of Clinton. And how many liberal activist judges? You've got the numbers. Add em up and post em. Name names. How long will those liberal activist judges appointed by the third-party enabled Clinton haunt us with their unconstitutional rulings? That's the whole point of my argument. If not for ill-conceived and failed third parties Clinton would never been elected president and his liberal judges would never have been appointed.

As to my mission statement, I'm perfectly happy with it and I mean to achieve it. With or without the help of you and your well-meaning but wrong-headed buddies.

[Jim Robinson]

As I said, you do not know that he is going to be appointed and neither does Dean and neither does the NYT, et al. It's Democrat propaganda designed to cause a rift in the conservative base. If you do not see that then you are being mighty naive.

[Jim Robinson]

Either that or you are purposely pushing it as an agent provocateur.