Posted on 12/30/2003 6:43:17 PM PST by Federalist 78
Once upon a time, not very long ago, there was no conservative movement. Then, for a half-century, it rose and grew ever stronger, finally, to contest for control of the major American political institutions. At the height of this climb, under Ronald Reagan, it rested control of the presidency. Bill Clinton did win back the executive but governed so far to the left, that conservatives won the House of Representatives in 1994. Yet, under the erratic leadership of Newt Gingrich, the House returned to status quo welfare statism by 1996, this time under GOP control, and George W. Bush felt in 2000 that he could not get elected president without qualifying his conservatism as "compassionate."
Before the 1950s, there were no conservatives. There were traditionalists and libertarians who opposed the dominant welfare state-liberal ideology, and there were Republicans who were "do it slower-than-the Democrats," welfare state moderates. But there were no conservatives in the modern sense. Modern conservatism was invented at National Review magazine in the mid-fifties, primarily by editors, William F. Buckley, Jr. and Frank Meyer. As befitting conservatism's positive view of common sense and tradition, the new doctrine was not planned but grew from the interactions of its creative but divided staff, which needed some common ground from which to publish a coherent enterprise. Meyer dubbed it "fusionist" conservatism. Its highest value was liberty, but it was a freedom to be used responsibly as a means to pursue traditionally defined and virtuous ends. The formula was: conservatism equals relying upon libertarian means to pursue traditional ends.
From this formula flowed conservatism's support of Western values as desired ends and opposition to both domestic statism and international communism, as enemies of those ends. Judeo-Christian morality, the family, religion, local communities and national patriotism were the values Meyer defined as Western. This also meant support for means such as individual freedom, free markets, voluntary associations, local governments, unfettered businesses-especially small businesses-and capitalism generally. This formula inspired additional conservative journals, new think tanks, the political action organizations, the Barry Goldwater take-over of the Republican party, the Reagan successes in limiting the welfare state, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and communism, and-after a forty year hiatus-the 1994 majority in the House.
In spite of all this success-or perhaps because of it-conservatives have begun to separate again into traditionalist and libertarian factions. The term "conservative'' survives primarily to hyphenate and divide social and economic types or simply to represent support of the failed status quo welfare state. Residual unity recedes at each instance of one branch or the other pursuing its individual agenda at the expense of what had been for a half-century, a common cause. Each social conservative attempt to write traditional values into national law violated its implicit agreement to use market or at least local government or community means to implement values rather than using the libertarian nemesis-the national welfare state. Opposition to abortion was a social position libertarians had to accept for the coalition to be created-and, it was coercion, after all-but libertarians revolted at the specter of national regulation of welfare eligibility rules, education requirements, alcohol consumption levels, and national anti-gambling laws. Why are these issues that state or local or private sources could not handle, they not unreasonably demanded?
Yet, libertarians also developed amnesia for the implicit consensus. Safely in power, it was no longer necessary even to discuss social ends, they said. Rather, "we should talk about those issues on which we all agree: limited government, low taxes and cutting spending." But these were positions the traditionalists accepted in return for libertarian agreement that traditional ends were the goal. If there was not even to be discussion-as opposed to national laws--regarding social issues like abortion, the family, education, faith and the culture, how could virtue be recognized as the end, the goal? If the libertarians would not openly acknowledge the legitimacy of the ends, even if achieved by free means, no wonder support for national legislation became the traditionalist payback.
Each side claimed the "mandate" of the 1994 election victory as justification to pursue its own separate agenda, even if it was at odds with the central principles of the other. In fact, the 1994 election was a mandate for neither alone nor, perhaps, even both together. It might plausibly be a mandate for some agenda of unified conservatism, but it more likely was simply a rejection of Bill Clinton's first-term social and economic liberalism. Moreover, it was a limited mandate at best. Turnout was low and the total Republican vote was no more than one-third of potential voters. The more fundamental truth is that it is very unusual for any single ideology to gain a majority mandate in the U.S. Today, in a very diverse America, it is virtually impossible.
Various voter groupings have been identified by experts, but no one of them total to a majority, including "conservatives" or moderates. The old, very useful Time-Warner typology identified a dozen groups, none of which represented more than an eighth of the population. The consistent "libertarians" (Time called them enterprisers) and traditionalists (called moralists) were the two largest groupings, but they only represented 12 percent of the population each. Even among the Republican primary electorate, enterprisers represented only 34 percent and moralists only 33 percent. Neither can win by itself, although together they could dominate the GOP nomination process, which is presumably why they came together in the first place.
Even the broadest classifications of voter-types do not find a majority supporting any single one. Political scientist par excellence, Aaron Wildavsky, identified four very broad political types: so-called individualists, deferentials, egalitarians and fatalists. Based upon the Time-Warner data, the first (which corresponds to economic conservatives) represented 34 percent of the population, the second (social conservatives) equaled 22 percent, egalitarians (liberals) were 27 percent and fatalists 17 percent. On the basis of this division, Wildavsky concluded that all politics must be coalition politics, with no single one able to mold a reliable majority.
Interestingly, Wildavsky claimed that the normal ruling coalition is the economic-social conservative one. They can cohere because they both basically hold a positive enough view of human nature to not require a strong central government to control a nasty human nature. The economic conservatives view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship, believing that a "hidden hand" will make everything turn out right. The social conservatives are not so optimistic, but they do think nature can be at least tolerant for human social life if institutions like the family, church and community are vibrant. Both limit government in favor of private institutions and differ from the egalitarians who view nature as ephemeral and fatalists who view it as capricious-both of which views require the strong hand of government to control harmful nature.
Like it or not economic and social conservatives are stuck with each other, if they want to be in the majority-or at least if they do not want a coalition of egalitarians and fatalists or establishment centrists in control. To even protect themselves from the governmental intrusions of the egalitarian-liberals and the fatalist Reform Party, traditionalists and libertarians must respect each other's bottom line values. Economic conservatives must be explicit that the traditional values are the goal, even if they stress more that the means should be voluntary ones. Social conservatives must recognize a difference between recognizing moral ills and the temptation of translating their solution into national laws, even if they must insist upon public discussion of the ultimate value-goals and their solution by voluntary and local means. If both conservative factions do not accommodate their natural allies, the other guys or the establishment will determine what the goals are and use national government means to enforce them.
It would be better to understand conservatism as more than a political bargain-as a consistent fusionist philosophy. As non-theistic, economic conservative F.A. Hayek taught both are necessary. Freedom and markets cannot exist without a traditional, even religious, social order to sustain them. As social conservative Russell Kirk believed, the state is often the greatest threat to traditional values and institutions. So there was a valid reason to "create" modern conservatism. Libertarian means and traditional ends have been the preferred historic formula for the great majority of both economic and social conservatives. A serious review of the major philosophers of tradition and liberty will find that the best in each school believed both were necessary, even if they lacked belief in the traditional values themselves. Indeed, Western civilization itself was and is a harmony of both. Not a simple uniform tune but a harmonic masterpiece, not simple libertarianism nor univocal traditionalism but both. That was the mix that created Europe and its offspring and imitators around the world, very much including the United States.
Even for traditionalists and libertarians who insist upon their own single tune-and who cannot accept a conservative philosophical harmony-if they want to be part of a governing majority, it is still rational to accept some coalition. The one that can protect the interests of both is the tested, Reagan one of libertarian means and traditional ends. That is how President Bush ran and won in the last election. Economic and social conservatives recognized the common threat to their values represented by a victory for an Al Gore promising more government and liberal social values. George Bush is now president, because both united. Not surprisingly, governing has proved more problematic.
The Bush Administration, concerned about the closeness of the 2000 election, decided to move left to win moderate liberals. It rejected Reaganism by increasing domestic discretionary spending on items like education, energy, tariffs, and agriculture and creating an entirely new $7 trillion prescription drug entitlement for seniors that will hasten Medicare's bankruptcy. It adopted the old spend-spend, elect-elect strategy of the welfare state liberals. Being split ideologically, neither traditionalists nor libertarians prevailed but establishment liberalism returned, this time sponsored by the Republican Party.
The price of a successful conservatism must be a gracious acceptance of the Reaganite live-and-let-live formula of libertarian means for traditionalist ends. If the modern scourges of brutal egalitarianism, debilitating fatalism and bureaucratized welfare statism are to be transcended, traditionalist and libertarian conservatives must work together in bold harmony. That means a vigorous conservative program based upon common principle, whether that means confronting progressive Democrats or welfare state Republicans. If we will not hang together, we surely will hang separately.
Each social conservative attempt to write traditional values into national law violated its implicit agreement to use market or at least local government or community means to implement values rather than using the libertarian nemesis-the national welfare state.
The local solutions/laws governing traditional values are destroyed by the federal courts.
Get congress to limit jurisdiction of federal courts on abortion, the family, education, faith and the culture....and let the States have at it!
Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Over the last 200 years, Congress has exercised this authority to except certain areas from the jurisdiction of the federal court system. In Turner vs. Bank of North America 4 Dall. (4 U.S.,8(1799)),the Supreme Court concluded that the federal courts derive their judicial power from Congress, not the Constitution.
In Cary vs. Curtis 3 How, (44 U.S.), 236 (1845), a statute made final the decision of the secretary of the Treasury in certain tax deductions. The statute was challenged as an unconstitutional deprivation of the judicial power of the courts. The Supreme Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the federal courts (inferior to the Supreme Court) was in the sole power of Congress.
In Sheldon vs. Sill 8 How (49 U.S. 441 (1850)), involved the validity of the assignee clause of the Judicial Act of 1789 restricting such action to establish federal court jurisdictions. The Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the inferior federal courts.
In Ex Parte McCardle 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 318 (1868), the Supreme Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court. Congress, fearful the Supreme Court would honor the writ, passed a law repealing the act which authorized the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
In Lauf vs. E.G. Shinner & Co. 303 U.S. 323, 330 (1938), the Supreme Court upheld the power of Congress to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States in the form restrictions on the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes under the Norris-La Guardia Act of 1932.
In Lockerty v. Phillips 319 U.S. 182 (1943), Congress provided for a special court to appeal price control decisions under the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The Supreme Court sustained this restriction.
In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today joined Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) in announcing the formation of the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability. The group will work to encourage responsible federal judiciary, and identify and prevent judicial activism.
"Co-chairs Lamar Smith and Steve Chabot have recruited a core of smart, tough and aggressive members, and based on the early meetings it's clear that when it comes to judicial abuses they're going to take no prisoners," DeLay said.
"We're going to address the problem of judicial activism at its roots and restore the U.S. Constitution as the North Star of the American judiciary," DeLay said.
This House working group will ensure that judges fulfill their duties without bias and without substituting their philosophy for the law. Some of their duties include:
Identify bad laws that invite judicial activism and hopefully recommend legislation that will prevent it in the future; Involve the House in more federal court nominations because we believe America deserves a United States Senate that will seriously consider this President's mainstream and qualified nominees and allow them a vote; Work with the Judiciary Committee on its vigorous oversight of the federal court system. In addition to Co-Chairs Smith and Chabot, working group members include Representative Todd Akin (R - Mo.), Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R - Tenn.), Rep. John Carter (R - Texas), Rep. John Culberson (R - Texas), Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R - Florida), Rep. Tom DeLay (R - Texas), Rep. Tom Feeney (R - Fla.), Rep. Walter Jones (R - N.C.), Rep. Steve King (R - Iowa), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R - Colo.) and Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.).
No kidding!
Bush is a "do it slower than the democrats" socialist.
"The Bush Administration, concerned about the closeness of the 2000 election, decided to move left to win moderate liberals.
It rejected Reaganism by increasing domestic discretionary spending on items like education, energy, tariffs, and agriculture and creating an entirely new $7 trillion prescription drug entitlement for seniors that will hasten Medicare's bankruptcy.
It adopted the old spend-spend, elect-elect strategy of the welfare state liberals."
Reagan's (and Bush I) expenditures ran 22%+ of the GDP, Clinton's "slash the military to shreds, and don't replace any ordnance" budget ran 19.7%, Bush's worst critics have his budget coming in at 21% of GDP.
And none of the previous three presidents had to contend with the nearly catasthropic economic aftermath of a devastating attack like what we all saw go down on 9/11.
"Why we are Conservatives"?
It should be because we are better informed than liberals...but we are not.
Russell Kirk: The state is often the greatest threat to traditional values and institutions.
I believe these statements. But instant gratification philosophy will always be more popular.
You know, Socrates, despite being oft-mislabeled a Sophist, was not at all into tearing down the prevailing traditional religious practices of his day.
You can't possibly be that thick, can you?
A lot of seniors can't afford to both eat, and buy needed medication, they are rapidly becoming the greatest voting block in the country (with the baby boomers starting to retire in droves).
What is YOUR solution to the issue of the high cost of prescription drugs.
Put up a solution NOW, because in another year, there will be many, many more retirees voting, and looking for help with their scrips.
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.