Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bonfire of the Sophisticates (Part 1)
Just a few days before Christmas, National Review’s Rich Lowry — easily one of my favorite writers — penned a sober analysis titled, “The Right’s Post-Constitutional Moment,” in which he laments that, “Trump has captivated a share of the Tea Party with a style of politics utterly alien to the Constitution.” This is especially vexing, Lowry continues, in light of a movement which in 2010 produced “… a class of constitutional obsessives, such as Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who were focused not just on what government shouldn’t do, but on what it couldn’t do, and why.”
Interesting turn of phrase there, using the designation, “constitutional obsessives,” to describe people who took a solemn oath of constitutional fidelity. I suppose I could be described as “matrimonially obsessive,” since I took a solemn and sacred vow of fidelity to my wife, but the term seems a bit quirky somehow, underscoring the Republican view of these upstarts and the voters who sent them, as borderline fanatics. In any event, Lowry goes on to describe Donald Trump in terms that strike this observer as disconcertingly accurate:
Donald Trump exists in a plane where there isn’t a Congress or Constitution. There are no trade-offs or limits. There is only his will and his team of experts who will figure out how to do whatever he wants to do, no matter how seemingly impossible. The thought you can’t do that doesn’t ever occur to him.
Trump is a reaction to Obama’s weaknesses, but also to Obama’s exaggerated view of executive power … For some on the right, clearly the Constitution was an instrument rather than a principle. It was a means to stop Obama, and has been found lacking.
Here, I think, is where the analysis begins to derail, and so it is here that I respectfully tender the first proposition:
Through its serial Faustian deals with the radical left, combining a toxic blend of political ineptitude, tenacious timidity, and an endless capacity for moral equivocation, the Republican Party has compromised its soul, reducing conservatism itself to little more than an academic exercise — all but paralyzed physically, though of some residual intellectual comfort.
Back in 2010, well before Donald Trump stepped on the political stage, Republicans vowed that big changes were on the way if only we would support them. The GOP unveiled a plan that “puts forth a new government agenda that reflects the priorities of the American people — priorities that have been ignored, even mocked by the powers-that-be in Washington — and can be implemented today.” Page after page of promises were offered, promises based on constitutional principles, no less, from which I glean just a few:
To provide Stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.
Cut government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.
Cut Congress’ budget.
Hold weekly votes on spending cuts.
Establish a hard cap on new discretionary spending.
Impose a net federal hiring freeze of non-security employees.
Repeal the costly health care takeover of 2010.
We will fight efforts to fund the costly new health care law.
Permanently prohibit taxpayer funding of Abortion.
We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.
Advance legislative issues one at a time. We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with “must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American people.
Keep terrorists out of America. We will prevent the government from importing terrorists onto American soil.
Require tough enforcement of sanctions against Iran.
Establish operational control of the border.
Conservatives generally — and Tea Partiers in particular — responded by installing Republicans in a historic majority in the House of Representatives. Expecting promised results, since the agenda was advertised as one that “can be implemented today,” conservatives watched in dismay as one opportunity after another to flex constitutional muscle was surrendered, always because the task was too daunting, and always with the stipulation that the good fight would be waged next time. Only next time never came.
Capitulation, like success itself, becomes a habit. In short order, those who promised to repeal and defund a perfectly awful health care law — and one that barely survived judicial scrutiny thanks to the linguistic gymnastics of a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court — look at us askance, incredulous that they should be held to their word. They only controlled one half of one branch, which was less than a full third of something or other. That they had neglected to mention all those caveats and conditions when asking us to give them the majority was somehow our fault, dontcha know? But even with majorities in both chambers, the results were the same.
Contrary to Mr. Lowry’s either/or proposition, the Constitution is both a principle and an instrument, designed to thwart the usurpation of its tenets. But we the people — who expected constitutional fidelity from those who promised as much — were derided as “purists,” constitutional troglodytes, too thick-headed to realize that principles are, in reality, mere expedients to be jettisoned as the cost of reaching across the aisle, and “getting something done.”
Yes, we are indeed in a post-constitutional era, but that process began long before Donald Trump’s first campaign event, over the vehement objections of some Tea Partiers who — having watched for several years as their representatives repeatedly and preemptively surrendered — have learned their lesson perhaps too well and decided to emulate the moderate’s emancipation from conservative orthodoxy, for the sake of getting something done, of course. In fact, they might even be forgiven if they answer the RINO’s belated and uncharacteristic concern for constitutional adherence with a wry smile and the single word, “purist.” Conservatism used to be made of sterner stuff before the apologists for Republican inaction and capitulation emasculated it. It’s adherents still make a coherent and persuasive philosophical case for it in these and other pages, but inaction has caused it to atrophy, and a weary and beaten citizenry are looking elsewhere for help.
It wasn’t the Constitution that was found lacking. It was Republicans who lacked the courage that the Constitution’s Framers expected from the representatives of a people whose very liberty was born of courage. One can argue over exactly when it was that the Right began making peace with extra-constitutional government, but when you fully fund an agenda you swore to oppose, and spend more time belittling those who voted for you than you spend keeping your word in the first place, you’re complicit in the results.
And it all happened before Donald Trump ever set foot on the political stage, which will bring me to the second proposition, in the next installment.
Part 2 of the Bonfire of the Sophisticates is here.
This post was originally published on Jan. 14, 2016.
Published in Domestic Policy, General, Politics
Seems to me that if you can’t deliver, and can’t (or won’t) make a serious effort to do so, you’ve no business promising otherwise. Better to be honest and say, “Vote for me and I’ll fund Obama’s agenda, because to do otherwise might give me unpleasant press coverage, so I’ll fund it…but I won’t like it much.” One could say that we were fools to believe these people in the first place, but to continue trusting their stewardship would be a continuation of that foolishness, yes?
What good is my concern about the Constitution when the Supreme Court rules based upon a desire to advance the political whims of the left? Or when the democrats completely ignore the Constitution, until they want to attack Republicans with it?
You can’t unring a bell. Over my lifetime the Constitution has gradually been becoming a dead letter, ignored and irrelevant, surviving only to be twisted into something almost unrecognizable by the Supreme Court. This process has accelerated greatly over the last few years.
I wish it were not so, but pretending otherwise doesn’t change it.
I’ll cede that your definition of “constitutional obsessives” and Rich Lowry’s may be closely aligned and that it’s more of pejorative description. If the constitution must be viewed in light of the current context, case law (which changes over time), and public views,…can your endorsement of Donald Trump’s constitutional view be far behind? I’m not positive that he endlessly cites the 10th Amendment, or worries much about “limited government,” after all, and his viewpoint appears to be enormously popular with the public. Besides, it may be him or Hillary and I know how you feel about loyalty to the party nominee even if he doesn’t align with an ideological purity test, right? Duane, I never knew you had it in you!
Can’t say that I’ve heard of him, though I’m sure he’s fascinating.
Ask Rand Paul.
For my money, I’d say some Constitutional limitations such as the ability of the Congress or even the states to override administrative edicts, or requiring Congressional approval of any administrative directive that exceeds a given dollar amount in economic impact, or an amendment that sunsets non-defense related administrative agencies unless their existence is specifically ratified via Congressional authorization. That might be a decent start.
I’m withholding judgment on Speaker Ryan for the moment.
Uou have to look at all the alternatives, the real choices available at the time decisions are made. The House passed a decent budget- the Senate tried for the entire year to address each separate appropriation properly as such things are supposed to be done.
Intense criticism would have been appropriate had none of these efforts been put forth. Winning the House-Senate Conference Committee would have required Dems willing to break ranks on the filibusters, and House Freedom caucus members (Tom McClintock quit because they were so obstreperous) willing to compromise as as needed given the actual power structures.
There were two choices because some “Right” Republicans announced in advance that they would vote ” no” period, and because Harry Reid filibustered: 1) negotiate a bad conference CR, taking what you could get, or 2) shut everything down and get all the blame.
Those were the choices. You can lard the post up other stuff, but in the end, there were two bad choices. I happen to believe that avoiding a shutdown at this time was the least worst approach. Bomb-throwers disagree, I believe that they are wrong.
And, you know what? I also think that the blithe words I have heard about “negotiate a better deal” all come from people who know nothing about negotiating- something that I do for a living. The stuff I have read at Ricochet about negotiating sounds like it was written in a middle school class.
Repeating the claim that a shutdown hurts Republicans doesn’t make it true. Republicans gained seats after the last one.
And we should demand that Republicans improve their PR in such scenarios, rather than pretend that less assertive actions make Republicans any more popular while Democrats lie and libel unopposed.
Politics is driven by perception more than reality. And Republicans are poor storytellers.
Yes, if the GOP passed bills that sat in the Senate because of Reid’s filibuster, why was there not an effort to shout from the mountain tops that he was doing so. I watch a lot of news–Special Report mostly–and I read a lot of news and there was not one article about McConnell claiming that Reid is seeking to harm the elderly and poor by stalling the appropriations bills. Not in The Hill.com, not on Drudge, not anywhere that someone who is not actively paying attention would know about it. So if there had been a shutdown, yes, the GOP would have gotten the blame because none of the ground work had been laid to make the case that they passed the appropriations bills. And that is the problem.
The GOP operates under this false notion that the Media is just going to cover what is going on in DC. Well they don’t. The GOP needs to get out there and tell the people what is going on. They have to get off of their butts and work.
“…I happen to believe that avoiding a shutdown at this time was the least worst approach. Bomb-throwers disagree, I believe that they are wrong. …”
Duane, I think you believe that avoiding a shutdown is the preferred action, at this time or any other time. Actually, I’ve known you for several years now, and I can’t remember a single instance when you didn’t support the weakest alternative, the quickest capitulation, or the most watered down approach conceivable. I worry at times that you’ll throw your back out carrying all that water for what others have called the “surrender caucus.” But I admire your stamina.
It’s interesting that those who differ with you, and who expect (because they were promised) a more bold and muscular approach, yes even one that entails some risk, are reduced to “bomb-throwers,” or middle schoolers in your lexicon, and I suppose we should be thankful for the noblesse oblige you demonstrate by instructing us. But I would respectfully point out that there are times when we “bomb-throwers” are indispensable, as we are reminded every 4th of July. Cheers.
This whole narrative of conservative popular will being unprecedented is not only diminished by the fact that the people reelected Barack in 2012 but what about the Senate and how did the numbers of the Republicans numbers change in the House of Representatives before and after Obama?
The truth is that only 11 seats (hardly different from past precedent) was the difference between the 2005-2007 congress for the Republicans and the Republicans did not regain the Senate till 2014 and even then its only 54 to 46. That is change, no doubt about it, but it was not some massive and overwhelming surge of change as the Democrats manage to gain 7 and get to 59 seats back in the congress of 2007-2009. Point in case being that if a truly massive conservative base existed and it was so happy to express its political will then more conservative candidates (which tend to be Republican in comparison to other parties) would have been elected.
A filibuster majority or even a super majority would have been elected in the Senate over that same time period. The Republicans saw gains obviously, but nothing that was out of the ordinary as percentages of the population rejected Democratic Policies. But rejection of option A does not mean support of option B. As we see with donald trump many policies proposed are inconsistent with conservative principles but those claiming that title (conservative) support him. They are either not conservative or conservatism is defined incorrectly.
I don’t blame the Congressional Republicans as much as many do. I am sympathetic to the argument that, even though we all elected them in 2010 and 2014 to stand up to the Obama mess, the other half of the country elected Obama to go in the opposite direction in 2008 and 2012. Faced with that scenario, elected members of Congress should act like adults. Of course, Obama never did. But I don’t start flinging Cheerios because my kids do. That’s chaos.
I can argue that they should have been more forceful on de-funding certain programs or not approving appointees. They did get a sequester (for a time). But in the end, the President is the key to anything in that town. We all know it. Fundamentally, we need to win a Presidential election to make the changes we need.
I do not think the anger many feel towards elites in Washington is about the failure of Republicans to stop Obama’s agenda. For some it is, and I suspect for many on these forums its important. But I don’t think that drives the majority of the anger. I think the anger is because elites don’t broadly share our values. When your reaction to a “Sanctuary City” is anything other than WTF!!!!, your head is not on straight. When some over-educated and under-experienced Senator bloviates for ten minutes on Iran and doesn’t give a profanity-laden tirade about you-know-who messing things up, like we are doing over and over in our heads every day, we begin to doubt if they share our understanding of the world.
I think many of us just think this is all insane and wonder how Senator Goofball isn’t blowing a gasket on a daily basis as we would be if in that situation.
We look at them, and we don’t see ourselves looking back.
I remember hoping really hard for a government shutdown pretty much every time we got near one in recent years.
I’m not certain that it would have hurt Republicans in the short run, a point made by several people here already, although the media seemed to always blame Republicans for what was essentially a bilateral stand-off. But I think it would clearly have benefitted Republicans in the long run. It would have demonstrated that the Republicans had the courage to do something when the Democrats were being intransigent. That courage would have gone a long way to mitigate the loss of reputation the party suffers from now in certain circles.
“Yes, we are indeed in a post-constitutional era, but that process began long before Donald Trump’s first campaign event….”
Yes.
“[W]hen you fully fund an agenda you swore to oppose, and spend more time belittling those who voted for you than you spend keeping your word in the first place, you’re complicit in the results.”
And yes.
Well said, Dave. I reckon us bumpkins ain’t sophisticated enough to tease out the nuances of inaction like our betters can. Trump is a symptom of a problem created by the GOP’s own fecklessness.
A spot on analysis. Please write more.
I just watched a debate where Trump said we can do better and negotiate harder on trade deals and the stalwarts of the GOP jumped up and explained why that was impossible, because we have this delicate balance, see…
So, America never wins, because it’s hard.
I didn’t get the impression that Dave was endorsing Trump or anyone really but rather pointing out that even the intellectuals of our own party seem to be placing the blame of Trump’s rise not only on the wrong people but for all the wrong reasons. I was working on my own piece going over the same ground as Dave but as he seems to be voicing my ideas pretty well, I think I will watch from the sidelines for the time being.
Me too. Except the voting part.
I suppose I qualify as one of Lowry’s constitutional obsessives, and I would quibble with calling today’s America a GT40. My characterization would be along the lines of a Chevy Volt that the ruling elites have stealthily switched with the GT40. However, they are calling the Volt a GT40!
America does need much more than just a tune-up. The engine (constitution) is already out of the old GT40 and is wasting away in the junk yard of the past. We need an Article V convention to oust the elite “experts” and get to work on the restoration of the real thing.
To clarify my goofy/lame analogy, The constitution is the GT40 (awesome when maintained). Sadly, the Constitution and America in general are not the same thing.
Appeal to peoples’ vanity (I voted for the first Black President! twice!) coupled with a really hard Republican to vote for. ObamaCare wasn’t the key, and then there was RomneyCare.
Thanks, Dave. Every round in the 10-ring, here.
Prescient.
I’m not good at math. What percentage of the minority population who support constitutional law will we need to assemble to get a super-majority of the population of the whole?
And a reminder, the new Constitutional laws that say the Constitution must be obeyed each need a sentence at the end specifying that the minority really mean it this time.