Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Robert Bluey :: Townhall.com Columnist
House Republicans Reclaim Their Brand on Spending
by Robert Bluey
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Senate Republicans are squabbling amongst themselves over immigration reform. President Bush is fighting a losing battle with his base. But in the House of Representatives, times couldn’t be better for the GOP.

House Republicans have coalesced around the issue of federal spending, handing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a stinging defeat on earmark reform and sending their liberal colleagues a unified message not to exceed the president’s budget requests.

For conservatives who stayed home last Election Day, it’s refreshing to see someone in Washington paying attention again.

Conservatives have Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, to thank for much of what’s happening. Hensarling’s unabashed devotion to fiscal restraint has helped GOP leaders John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) unify Republicans.

Of course, their job was made even easier by Democratic miscues, most notably House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s attempt to ram through a secret earmark slush fund with no transparency or accountability. The Wisconsin Democrat’s underhanded maneuver gave conservatives a perfect opening, and they took advantage.

One by one, conservatives strode onto the House floor to contrast Pelosi’s promise “to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history” with Obey’s shenanigans. Business in the House came to a standstill, leaving the speaker and her cohorts no option but to cut a deal and hand the GOP a win.

Only days later, conservatives scored their second triumph when Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) managed to round up 147 members to sign a letter vowing to uphold the president’s veto of spending bills that exceed his budget requests. That’s one member more than the 146 needed to sustain a veto.

And it looks like the signatories will have plenty of opportunities to follow through on their promise. Congressional appropriators have been busy stuffing this year’s spending bills with extra fat. The homeland security appropriations bill, for example, came in at 14% more than Bush’s request. He’ll veto it and, if the letter signers hold true to their word, House Republicans will deliver enough votes to make the veto stick.

What’s most significant about these developments is the way they came about. In both cases, conservative ideas quickly snowballed into party-unifying messages. Boehner and Blunt, both of whom faced challenges from the right for their current leadership posts, have embraced their onetime foes.

During a June 14 celebratory conference call, conservative bloggers asked Blunt and Hensarling about friction between GOP leadership and rank-and-file conservatives in the House. Both members dismissed such talk and lauded their ability to get along.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the man charged with helping the GOP regain control of the House in next year’s elections, told me that in the wake of the earmark fight, Republicans “got their groove back.” Life in the minority has been a wake-up call for many Republican members, he said, and they don’t like it. As a result, they are banding together to change the situation.

It won’t come easy, but conservative Republicans are getting some outside help. The ultra-liberal policies being proposed by Democratic leaders, coupled with their inability to get much done, threaten to undo the party that swept into Washington with so much hope and exuberance less than six months ago. With congressional approval ratings at historic lows -- Gallup finds only 14% of Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in Congress -- now is the time for conservatives to reclaim the issue of fiscal restraint that cost them control.

Following last November’s electoral losses, the conservative Club for Growth bluntly stated that the “Republican Party has completely lost its brand as the party of limited government and low spending.” The group cited a post-election poll that revealed nearly 40% of Americans thought Republicans were “the party of big government” compared to 28% who had that opinion of Democrats.

Despite the GOP’s recent successes, it’s premature for Republicans to take any victory laps. Yes, they were able to embarrass Democrats on procedural grounds in the earmark fight. And, yes, the veto letter gives them a credible weapon to wield in battles over spending bills. But the hard work is just beginning.

For example, a $23 billion slush fund created to finance those earmarks still exists. “House Republicans struck a blow for openness and transparency,” said my Heritage Foundation colleague Brian Riedl. “The next test will be whether Congress takes advantage of this openness to terminate the thousands of pork projects that are expected to appear in spending bills.”

It’s a test that Republicans failed for much of this decade. But with a quest to win at the polls and a frustration with being stuck in the minority, it’s the GOP’s best bet to get its winning brand back.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Robert B. Bluey is director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation and maintains a blog at RobertBluey.com
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
HARD TO BELIEVE
all this is academic, when in 2010 we become NA Union - the real reason for no border control...

Sham
Let them get back to the majority again. They'll return to being spendthrifts. It's in the nature of the beast.

Earmarks!


This post on the PeachPundit brings up a serious problem in Washington. Lawmakers on both sides make a big deal about how they are fighting for an open, honest environment with earmark spending. Yet when ask for a list of their earmark spending, they fight to conceal it. Should we not demand Pelosi and Congress just eliminate earmarks to stop this game?

Take up the AC 360 Challenge on Earmarks

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/earmarks


Maybe I'm just naive...

But I'm not sure why we NEED earmarks in the first place.

The whole concept of earmarks just seem to be a way to getting money (pork) for one's state through the back door.

If federal money is legitimately needed, why can't it be voted for on its own merits?





Good Point Robert
The conversion really seems like sham. The GOP got caught with their hands in the cookie jar (pork barrel?) and is only now trying 'to reclaim their roots.' I do appreciate the story mentioning Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas and his efforts to start slowing down spending.

Funny thing is, I hear there is another Rep. from Texas who never had to go through this 'conversion,' never got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, never voted for these obscene spending increases. He is no Johnny-come-lately on fiscal restraint. If there is any reduction in the size or scope of government, he would be the first one I would thank. You might have heard of him. Here are some hints....

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.

For those still not sure who the truly consistent small government Republican is...one more hint: http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

It's great news
the Reps have flip flopped and decided to cut spending, pork and earmarks as they promised to get elected. Perhaps it's more than pandering but one doubts they have suddenly found the conservative principles they preach.


cfountain72, careful, big government social "conservatives" around here dislike the fiscal, constitutional conservative that you hint at.

The dollar bill
Is in hock to the world bankers.

Its use for the theft of America is concluded, matter of time for how really poverty stricken the nation has come to.

Without debt the present production line of printed paper we call money cannot be manufactured.

Congress knows this and is why they talk out of both sides of their mouth, the truth is they are scared to death to tell the public of how they havbe sold the nation to the bankers and corporations that now own America.

Anyone who tries to bring this truth into the light of day is hounded with mockery and even imprisoned.

Most Americans do not understand how our monetary system works against them slowly but surely stealing their lifes labors.

I will borrow the words from a greater man (of understanding government) than we all.


Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
John Adams

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.
John Adams

A smart child
A smart child, once spanked for an offense, will not make the same mistake twice. So the question is...

Are CongressCritters as smart as preschoolers? Frankly, I have my doubts.

talent scout nailed it
You have struck at the heart of the problem and the reason much of what we see going on in the Federal Government is happening, including immigration issues.

For three years in a row the GAO has warned Congress -

Quote:
Further, GAO’s audit report also included an emphasis paragraph for the 3rd consecutive year noting that the nation’s current fiscal path is unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are necessary to address the nation’s large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07362sp.pdf
========================

failed tests
Another test they've failed is protecting their base from racial and gender preferences. Bush has pushed racial and gender preferences hard, and federal programs are full of them. And of course, there are tons of private preference programs, like scholarships set aside for "everyone but whites" or "everyone but men" even at public colleges supposedly protected by laws against preferences, as in California.

And what does Bush do? Try to legalize millions of preference beneficiaries.

It's about time these Republicans did something to support the needs of the voters instead of thumbing their noses at us.

House Republicans Reclaim
Long overdue , is a good start.
Not as good as it should be, though.
Here is one example, our local representative Rick Renzi (R), co sponsored this bill along with a southern Az Dem.
I just looked up H.R. 1999, a proposed $5 Million, followed by $10 Million each year thereafter to National Council of La Raza. This is one of the groups helping set the agenda for the Senate Bill S. 1348 Immigration. HUD already has funds for assistance in the area as needed. Hope Fund Act of 2007. We need Hope, hope that this does not pass.

Michael's note
Exactly. Republicans keep backing groups like La Raza and CAIR. They have total contempt for the average American.

lonestarblues
You told cfountain72 that "careful, big government social 'conservatives' dislike the fiscal, constitutional conservative that you hint at."

Two points:

1. One can be a "social conservative" and still oppose big government. Most are appalled over the huge increases in spending under GWB and the Republicans in Congress.

2. We dislike the aforementioned fiscal, constitutional conservative, not because he opposes big government, but because he is an isolationist who does not understand the virulent, aggressive nature of jihadist threat and who naively thinks that if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone. That kind of thinking is going to get us killed.

I wish that the other candidates were as clear-headed as your guy is on fiscal issues. If he had an acceptable foreign policy, I could even overlook some of my differences with your guy on certain social issues. I do not dismiss him as a nut, but the number one issue right now is how to confront the jihadists, and your guy's position is a non-starter for me.

gentlemanscholar
1. I admittedly made a lumping overgeneralization when politics comes in all sizes and flavors. But, generally speaking, right now the Republican Party base is composed of three factions: social cons, neocons and fiscal cons. By definition you're not a fiscal con if you depend big government solutions. Neocons we know are ex-liberals who favor big government solutions but for fighting the Terror War there's little choice. So who else is it depending on big government solutions the social con George W Bush has delivered? OK, so you don't agree with all he's throwing money at, you've got other values on your agenda to get government behind, but, regardless your values, it's still big government, and liberal.


2 As a gentleman scholar surely you know the difference between isolationist and noninterventionist. Liberal isolation could get us killed. Nonintervention is a prudent and traditional conservative stance that stands strong against real threats. Conflating the meanings of the different terms seems to be popular among bleeding heart social cons like Hannity.

Here's RP explaining nonintervention: "Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy" (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html)


3 RP is not "my guy" as I tend to vote on principles rather than the personality behind them--we all know GW talked the talk but hasn't walked the walk. I don't hold much hope RP will be nominated, but I do see the value in the ideas he expresses and think they need to be heard.

Finally
Now, now ... finally these clowns start acting like the people their base thought they were when they replaced Democrats. With 61 CDs controlled by Democrats but registered predominantly Republican, maybe Pelosevich will fade back into the woodwork, taking Murtha with her.

Gentlemanscholar
I appreciate your thoughtful response. As every good conservative knows, our government's domestic policies are full of the best of intentions, but are often fraught with unfortunate, even dreadful, unintended and expensive consequences. So I must ask why on earth is it so difficult for some conservatives to recognize that this very same thing happens in the foreign policy arena?

Imagine you are a 7 year old boy living in Iraq. Your innocent parents have just been killed by 'collateral damage.' You have reason believe Americans were responsible for their deaths. It matters not one bit to that little boy that the U.S. 'meant well' or were trying to 'spread democracy.' The fact is, he and thousands like him will grow up to be the terrorists that me and my two children will be forced to deal with. This will be Bush's true legacy, for which he should never be forgiven.

When this boy attacks us 10 years from now, will we have the wisdom to recognize the reasons behind their attack? Will we rediscover the lessons our Founding Fathers offered? Or will we sheepishly listen to Benito Giuliani's spin machine tell us that they still just 'hate us for our freedoms.'

Yes, the jihadists are evil and want lopping off heads to be added as an Olympic sport. But if that is extent of your foreign policy vision, let me offer you a VERY short tome to read: "Militant Islamic Attacks in Japan." They are free. They are rich. They buy lots of oil from the Middle East. They are certainly non-Muslim infidels. Yet, I'm not aware of any substantial attacks by the jihadists. I don't see the Rising Sun being burned in the streets of Jordan.

Hmmm...so what in the world is it they don't have in common with us. What could make us bear the brunt of so much of jihadist pain, while another country with similar freedoms as ours 'luckily' seems to avoid it.

I won't even insult you by answering such an obvious question. Just tell me what nation has been meddling in the geopolitical affairs of the Middle East for the past 50 years and what nation hasn't.

Peace be with you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html

Great Brand
How about they keep it this time. The brand works as long as they don't take it off. It works so well even the democrats pretended to put it on.
SMILE

The Conservative Brand
One hopes Republicans in the House have seen the light. Since the Socialists (i.e. Democrats) have run their poll numbers down to near zero, if we look at the plus or minus figures, maybe Americans can eak this one out and Conservatives can reclaim the House next election.

lonestarblues
Thank you for your thoughtful response.

1.I acknowledge that I did conflate "isolationism" with "non-interventionism." Frankly, I have not developed a well-considered position on the issue. I do believe that we need a policy that is considerably more aggressive RP would allow, while conceding that we do have a history of making some rather ill-advised interventions in the past. The Islamic jihadists may latch on to some of these as an excuse, but their behavior is not so much driven by a defensive reaction to us as it is driven by their worldview and their eschatological commitment to a global Caliphate. Like I said, I haven't thought this through to the point of delineating a set of principles -- but I think we need something much more aggressive than RP's non-interventionism without falling into the trap of excessive foreign adventurism and nation-building.

2. When I referred to "RP" as "your guy" I wondered if he really was "your guy" -- your post seemed a lot more sensible than those who have become totally obsessed by this candidate. My main reason for referring to RP in this way was to avoid attracting the attention of those with RP-ODD. I do not mind discussing the issues and the positions propounded by RP, but I can do without the screeds and the "smarter-than-thou" attitude exhibited by some of them.

3. I still think that your characterization of social conservatism is not quite right. Yes, GWB is, among other things, a social conservative and a big govt liberal. He has also correlated some of his social conservatism with governmental solutions (e.g., "faith-based initiatives"). But-- correct me if I'm wrong -- until GWB came along, "social conservatives" were not asking for special government programs to promote their interests -- were they?

I am wondering if perhaps my concept of a "social conservative" is different than yours, because you wrote, "OK, so you don't agree with all he's throwing money at, you've got other values on your agenda to get government behind, but, regardless your values, it's still big government, and liberal."

Well, I'm not a libertarian, but unless all non-libertarians are ipso facto big government liberals simply because they draw the line differently over which set of values defines the boundary between legal/illegal, then I do not see how this makes be a big government liberal.

For example, I am pro-life. I do not see how the pro-life position entails more federal bureaucracy. Throughout most of the history of our nation, abortion was illegal. Some states began loosening restrictions on abortion in the 1960's, but up until Roe v. Wade, the issue was handled at the state level. Pro-lifers did not federalize the issue, the Supreme Court did. Roe v Wade was not a "conservative" decision, but the prime example of unconstitutional, liberal legislation from the bench.

If pro-life = big govt liberalism, then surely RvW should represent the ultimate triumph of conservative, small government principles, but I do not know of anyone who has ever described it thus.

Note also that the federal budget did not realize a savings as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, and in fact, if it were not for social conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde, we would be funding abortions -- and perhaps you can give GWB credit for vetoing the recent attempt (again) of Congress to provide federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Pro-lifers are not asking for more government bureaucracy -- e.g., we do not want a federal bureau of adoptions -- we want the issue to go back to the states. This would cede no more power to the government (local, state, federal) than what was the case from the founding of our nation to RvW.

Now while this position is not one that will be endorsed by a libertarian, I do not think that it equates to big government liberalism any more than the belief that murder should be against the law makes one a big government liberal.

To sum up in one sentence: just because I am not a libertarian does not mean that I am big government liberal.








Thank God
Well it's about time the GOP get its house in order. I think we have a real chance at winning back the House in 2008. I think that our representatives just may have go that memo we sent them. Lets see if they can keep it up.

It is important that we scold them when they mess up but we should also praise them when they do right. Politicans in many ways must be treated like children.

temporary condition
But we're so shortsighted to believe that this is the natural state of conservatives. We have 6 unforgettable years of experience watching conservatives spend so fast that they made LBJ jealous.

Don't mistake political expediency for fundamental values. We already made that mistake and we'll probably continue paying the price for decades.

We should all follow Missouri's example and be the show me country. Republicans and Democrats have both shown that they're incapable of good government. If you want good government, you have to vote third party.

http://freedomistheanswer.blogspot.com/

not so shortsighted
I hate when I leave out important words like 'not'.

cfountain72
You make some good points about the law of unintended consequences, and a compelling case about the dangers we face down the line as a result of the war in Iraq. I agree that our Middle East policy and some of our foreign interventions have contributed to the anti-Americanism of the jihadists -- it would be foolish to think that their actions against us took place in a geo-political vacuum -- but I do not believe that our foreign policy is the sole, or even the primary cause of their attacks.

As I noted above in my second reply to lonestarblues, the jihadists have an eschatological vision in which they see themselves as Allah's instruments in bringing about a global Caliphate, beginning in the Middle East, then extending across north Africa, Europe, and Asia -- and eventually around the world. This totalitarian vision antedates American involvement in the Middle East, and the jihadists will continue to work toward it even if we were to withdraw and completely forswear any future foreign interventionism.

Even if we agree not to allow American newspapers to publish cartoons of Muhammed or if we agree not to allow publishing companies to print copies of The Satanic Verses, I am sure that we can count on them to come up with causi belli against the United States.

You joked about the brevity of any book attempting to delineate the jihadist’s threat to Japan, but I suspect that the Japanese people were not laughing when UBL issued a threat on satellite broadcasts in Qatar in October 2003, naming Japan as a target for terrorist attacks. Islamic jihadists have been hard at work undermining governments and attacking civilians in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, not to mention about a half dozen countries in Africa.

The jihadists are not simply responding to what we do, but I grant you that our presence in the Middle East no doubt aggravates them and makes us a priority target. But I also worry about the unintended consequences of limiting our intercourse with other nations to trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy and hoping that that will be enough to staunch Islamist jihad.

gentlemanscholar...
...you are both, indeed.

It seems we have, in this election, two extremes in our dealings with other nations. Rep. Paul represents non-interventionism, focused on trying simply to maintain lines of communication and trade at one end, and I would say Giuliani represents the other, with full-on pre-emptive war anywhere, anytime. Other candidates would fall somewhere within that spectrum.

We don't really need to hypothesize about the course that this administration has taken, and which many GOP hopefuls support. It has cost the lives and limbs of tens of thousands brave young Americans, hundreds of billions of dollars we do not have to spend, the moral high ground which we once could claim as ours, the respect of most of our allies, and (I believe) will guarantee a never-ending War on Terror and continuous attacks and reprisals.

The 'fight-em over there instead of over here argument' would be comical if it wasn't believed by so many well-meaning citizens. Does anyone really believe that this pre-emptive war (sans Cheney and Giuliani) has actually prevented any attacks? In other words, had we not chosen to go to Iraq, would we have been attacked? That we have not been attacked (thank God) is the result much more of good intelligence and solid police work, and is in spite of this foreign policy.

Does this mean I do not appreciate the good intentions of Dubya? No. His grand ideal of a democratic arab state is noble-but it is not our responsibility, nor is it our right!

With respect to the inherent benefits of non-interventionism, I will simply refer to the Good Doctor. He is the one running for office, not I, and he can explain it with a great deal more detail and clarity that I ever could. To those with an open mind (I will presume to include the gentlemanscholar?), and wish to hear the man that these 'crazy people' keep talking about, please click here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html

Thanks, and peace be with you all.

gentlemanscholar
Thank you for your thoughtful responses as well.

You say "I think we need something much more aggressive than RP's non-interventionism without falling into the trap of excessive foreign adventurism and nation-building."

And I agree. I think RP's stance makes prudent conservative sense in general, but on the particulars of the Middle East I disagree with him on what to do now. Iraq may have been a mistaken intervention, but we're there now and the war and the nature of the enemy is changing to one against terrorism, and we must act responsibly.


"...until GWB came along, "social conservatives" were not asking for special government programs to promote their interests -- were they?"

Turn coats on Contract with America like Gingrich, Delay, Brownback, have all pushed social conservative agendas with big government solutions.



"Well, I'm not a libertarian, but unless all non-libertarians are ipso facto big government liberals simply because they draw the line differently over which set of values defines the boundary between legal/illegal, then I do not see how this makes be a big government liberal."

One line was drawn when the Constitution was ratified. Generally, those who depend on government for solutions its not empowered to solve are, imo, liberal. And that is true whether you're trying to control money or morality. Distribution of wealth via social welfare I'm sure we'd agree is liberal if not socialist. Distribution of wealth via corporate welfare we might begin to disagree on--I'm using you and we generically. Now where I see social conservative edging into liberalism is with seeking federal solutions to various pro-life positions, for example the PBA ban, marriage amendment, and the Shaivo case.

Mind you, I'm not arguing the moral right and wrong of such cases, just whether the Constitution empowers the federal government to have any say in it. Certainly with abortion you would agree the court had no business federalizing what the states were doing, but where does the Constitution empower the legislature to do so? Such matters, according to the Constitution are left to the states, and in many cases of morality to the people. Are there social conservatives who do not look to federalization of these issues according to their values, yes, I'm sure there are, and by your response you do not. But generally, imo, the majority of social conservatives do.

Again, I admit I'm lumping.

For thinker (on NAU)
That early?

FINALLY!
Some testicles from The GOP!

Lostinwilderness
Absolutely correct, we need to vote 3rd party and no longer trust these elites. "Will of the people" and the "Constitution" are always convenient phrases the politicians bring out when they want our vote. If they actually stood by their promises, it would be a correct position to take. Sadly they do not follow through with what they say and I am not believing them this time.

Lonestarblues and gentlemanscholar offer an intelligent discourse on true conservative prinicples, but you have to wonder what principles the elites in congress truly have.

The best way to move the elites off center is to shake them up. The way to do that is to deny them the Presidency, which the two parties earnestly desire above all things. If we do that, we can begin the process of returning the nation to the founding principles of the Constitution, rule of law, and will of the people. If you want to see how we could accomplish that, check out my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG. There are possibilities and opportunities if we have the faith to reach out for them. Visit the site, what have we got to lose? These same old elites of both parties have already stolen our birthright, we need only step up and reclaim it. Thanks, Joe

lonestarblues
This is the most interaction I've ever had with anyone on TH, and I deeply appreciate the thoughtful, respectful way in which you and Cfountain have discussed these matters with me. Dennis Praeger often says that he seeks clarity over agreement -- I think that we probably agree on most of these issues more than we disagree, but even where we disagree, I appreciate having a clearer understanding of your position.

One of the issues that has troubled me greatly in reading these TH columns and the comments posted on them is the splintering of the GOP conservative base and the apparent antipathy of fiscal conservatives and others toward social conservatives. Social conservatives have been blamed for the defection of libertarians, independents, and sometimes even fiscal conservatives from the GOP. I am sure that some of this antipathy is a response to some of the over-the-top, ignorant things said by certain evangelical "spokesman." And some of it has to do with differences on social issues and the priority which we accord them relative to other issues. But I had always thought that since most social conservatives were not only conservative on the social issues, but conservative on numerous other issues (tax cuts, balanced budget, strong military, judicial philosophy), that despite our differences with other factions of the base, we had enough in common to be regarded as a legitimate partners in the conservative base of the party. Recent (over the last 2-3 years) columns and posts here, notably by Bruce Bartlett, have led me to question that understanding. And so I browse through these comments sections trying to figure out why some members of the party want to throw social cons/evangelicals overboard when they were a significant part of GOP victories from Ronald Reagan up until 2006.

What troubled me with your original post (and others that I have seen recently), was the implication that social conservatives were “big government liberals” (not your exact words, but that was how I interpreted it). I found this both puzzling and irritating. Puzzled, because it did not make sense – the overwhelming majority of social conservatives are not asking for special government programs to support conservative causes; we want less government spending on social problems, not more. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of social conservatives are evangelical Christians – our Christian worldview not only informs our social values, it is also the basis for belief in the limited power of government and the conviction that it is the church and private charities that have the responsibility to respond to social problems. I was also irritated about what I thought was a rather uncharitable label, you know, the “L” word. Until you responded and clarified what you said, I thought that you had adopted the same pattern of rhetoric of others here at TH – 1) you have a very definite concept of what constitutes a “true conservative; 2) anyone who does not meet my criteria of true conservatism is a Liberal, RINO, etc.

You wrote, “Generally, those who depend on government for solutions its not empowered to solve are, imo, liberal. . . . Now where I see social conservative edging into liberalism is with seeking federal solutions to various pro-life positions, for example the PBA ban, marriage amendment, and the Shaivo case.”

1. I agree with you that “those who depend on government for solutions its not empowered to solve are . . . liberal.” Where we disagree is over the legitimate extent of government powers. Now, admittedly, I am not a Constitutional scholar, and so this will probably strike you as somewhat simplistic, but . . . the function of the legislature is to legislate, and the laws that it legislates are predicated on the presupposition of a certain type of moral order – specifically, the moral order presupposed by our Founders and expressed in our founding documents. Virtually all legislation is predicated upon some moral principle (rightly or wrongly conceived) except, perhaps naming buildings, bridges and highways after pork barrel spenders. One of these fundamental values was the sanctity of human life. Up until RvW, laws against abortion were the bailiwick of state and local government. It was the Supreme Court that federalized the issue. You argue that if the SC was wrong to federalize, then so is the U.S. Congress when they enact legislation such as the PBA. But once again, the SC federalized the issue by striking down Nebraska’s PBA in June 2000. Their ruling turned it into a federal, constitutional issue, and I thought that the legislature, as a co-equal branch of government, had the right to address the matter. I think that there is a similar pattern going on with the marriage amendment. The SC has not yet directly addressed this issue, but they have certainly set up enough precedent to follow the pattern that we have seen in Mass. and NJ. Unfortunately (at least from my perspective), we are nowhere near having the 2/3 vote necessary to pass such an amendment. But please note, --if we had the votes, a marriage amendment would not contravene the Constitution because the very process of passing an amendment to the Constitution is by definition Constitutional. Regarding the Shaivo case – well, I have to admit that although I was very torn over the human tragedy of that situation, and I desperately wanted to see her life spared, it was a huge mistake for the Congress to intervene in that situation and that they did overstep their Constitutional bounds.

2. Quo vadis? Where do we go from here?

a. social conservatives/evangelicals need to do a better job of thinking through the best way to change social policy on their values issues. I have believed for some time that we should be doing a better job of moral persuasion – changing minds and hearts one at a time – instead of putting so much emphasis on trusting politicians and government institutions. There is no point in forcing these issues through a political process unless a large majority of the American public share our values. If and when it does come time to address these issues at a political level, we do need to consider what the best legal strategy would be. Too many of us have focused on federal solutions. If other conservatives believe that the Constitution proscribes federal involvement on these issues, perhaps we should look to state and local solutions. That is where the debate will be anyway if the SC ever over-turns RvW. That would eliminate the conflict over interpretation of the Constitution and the role of the Federal government, but I suspect that libertarians would still be unhappy with any attempt to ban or restrict abortion at the state level.

b. social conservatives/evangelicals need to find ways to build bridges with other members of the conservative, GOP coalition. It would be helpful if some of our leaders would refrain from using electoral threats or pontifical pronouncements as a means of getting their way, and instead, try to focus more on common causes.

c. fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and other factions of the GOP who are unhappy with evangelical/social conservative influence in the party need to start thinking about how they are going to advance their agendas, and whether they think they are more or less likely to be successful once they have convinced social conservatives that they are no longer welcome in the party. The overwhelming majority of evangelicals want limited government, low taxes, a strong military, and a federal judiciary that will interpret the Constitution and the law according to its original intent rather than legislate from the bench. If those members of the conservative base who dislike/disagree with evangelicals and social conservatives think that it is to their advantage to pursue these objectives without evangelical help and support, then so be it. If, on the other hand, they find evangelical support useful in pursuing these objectives, then they could at least give us a respectful hearing over our issues.

On a personal level, I feel like I am at a crossroads politically. I have always felt as if there was a kind of unwritten pact with other members of the GOP. We would vote for the candidates that best represented our beliefs, values, and priorities in the primaries. And so for example, in my case, being pro-life was a major litmus test issue, followed by the other conservative positions held commonly by other factions of the base. But then, when our nominees were selected, I would support our party’s nominee, even if he/she did not pass some of my primary litmus tests. I assumed that our shared interests were sufficient to justify that support, and there was always next time. A prime example of that was the first time I voted in 1976. Reagan lost the presidential primary to Ford; Ford was pro-choice, but I vigorously supported him against Carter, and did so despite Carter’s purported “evangelical” identity. I was attending a Christian college at the time, and I had to work hard to convince everyone that I could that just because Carter claimed to be born again, it did not mean that he deserved their vote. Ford narrowly lost, but Reagan came back to win in 1980. Part of his victory margin could be attributed to overwhelming support among evangelicals.

From what I have been reading at TH here lately, I am beginning to realize that many members of the conservative community apparently do not share my “pact” philosophy. The ad hominen attacks – and with all due respect – I still regard labeling social conservatives as “liberals” as an ad hominen – I now realize that I need to re-think my position.



lostinthewilderness
Thanks for the complement on Missouri. I am from the Show Me state and really like it here. If you wanted to get elected or do anything in Missouri, well, we're pretty skepitical.

I would say that voting third party would be good but the Dems and Reps would unite to crush any third wing opposition. Usually what happens is we divide the conservative base and strength and the Democrats win.

I would suggest a retaking of the GOP through funds and primary votes. It would be easier to reshape our current party than to form a new one all together.

gentlemanscholar
What an excellent analysis. We in the Republican party are a coalition of free thinkers all aimed at the goal of reduced government and the principles of the constitution. We are not mind num robots like the Democrats and their base. And I completely agree, we as conservatives must unite to combat teh socialists and their agenda.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.