Republicans searching for their conservative roots

JoeContrarian · May 6, 2006

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2006/05/05/196413.html

What would a conservative Republican Party look like?

May 5, 2006
by Mark M. Alexander ( bio | archive | contact )
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript"> function popEmailWin(URL,LEFT,TOP,WIDTH,HEIGHT) { s = ",left="+LEFT+",top="+TOP+",width="+WIDTH+",height="+HEIGHT; thisWindow = window.open(URL,"PNSRC","location=no,scrollbars=no,menubar=no,toolbar=no,resizable=yes"+s); } </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.townhall.com/scripts/textsizer.js"></script>

  "There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -- James Madison

Well, that's exactly what Indiana Representative Mike Pence and 100 fellow House Republicans are out to answer -- how to make the Republican Party the home of constitutionality and conservatism once again.

That's not to say there's no conservatism in the GOP. As the titular head of the Republican Party, President George W. Bush has distinguished himself as a conservative when it comes to foreign policy and -- all importantly -- in restoring the judicial branch to its proper constitutional role through the appointment of constructionist-minded judges to federal benches. That said, President Bush has failed dismally when it comes to restoring, or even holding, government to its proper constitutionally limited role.

At present, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, yet the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown unabated since President Bush took office. Of course, our nation's vigorous response to the 9/11 attacks and our pre-emptive military response to Jihadis in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for some of that growth, but those necessary -- and we might add, constitutionally mandated -- expenditures have not been offset by spending cuts to domestic programs as Mr. Bush once promised would happen.

Today, the federal government spends $2.47 trillion -- that's 2,470 billions of dollars -- each year. Adjusted for inflation, that's 50 percent larger than the big-government Clinton-era budgets of only a decade ago, about which Republicans constantly complained. Of that, only 21 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to national defense and homeland security. By contrast, 54 cents goes to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 8 cents goes to servicing the federal debt.

Meanwhile, the federal deficit will grow another $423 billion this year, raising the national debt to $8.28 trillion! While we're not exactly "The sky is falling!" deficit hawks, it's worth noting that big budgets and big deficits tighten the money supply, increasing the costs of investment and slowing economic growth and prosperity.

Enter the Republican Study Committee.
Founded in 1973 by Rep. Phil Crane to reinvigorate the GOP as the party of constitutional constructivism and social conservatism, the RSC became the premier mobilizing agent for House conservatives, dedicated to "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government, a strong national defense, the protection of individual and property rights, and the preservation of traditional family values."

In 2005, Rep. Mike Pence became the Committee's chairman for the 109th Congress. He and his fellow conservatives have rallied around principles outlined in a speech last fall, "Another Time for Choosing," picking up the central theme of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing".

Today, under Pence's leadership, the RSC is the originator of the Contract with America: Renewed, created by Representatives Pence and Jeb Hensarling, with the aim of reviving the legislative agenda of Newt Gingrich's original 1994 Contract with America. It was that agenda, readers will recall, that catapulted Republicans into control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years.

Under the FY 2007 Contract with America: Renewed budget proposal, overall spending would be reduced by more than $700 billion and a balanced federal budget realized by 2011. The RSC proposal would make real reductions in discretionary spending (without silly and unconstitutional inventions like a "line-item veto"), rein in entitlement spending and undergird the U.S. economy with sound, pro-growth tax policy. Under the RSC plan, more than 150 other federal programs would be eliminated outright. Foreign aid -- which should serve as a tool for U.S. security and interests abroad, but often falls prey to special interests -- would be cut by $31 billion over five years. The ignominious six-year Highway Bill, pork-laden with roads and bridges to nowhere, would be repealed. Medicare, whose trustees this week announced will go broke in 2018, would be limited to a more sustainable growth of 5.4 percent annually -- a necessary first step in getting the federal government out of the entitlement business altogether.

As was the case in 1994, today's Contract isn't just about a return to fiscal conservatism; it includes a strong focus on social conservatism as well. Take, for instance, the Contract's objectives with respect to the three sacred cows of taxpayer-funded social liberalism: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts -- not reduction, elimination.
And that's just the beginning.

In 1994, when the "Gingrich Revolution" launched the original Contract, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the nation was in the grip of the Clinton presidency. The Contract nationalized the election around its agenda. It proved a monumental success in capturing both Houses for the GOP, promoting increased trade, reforming welfare and containing the advance of big-government entitlement schemes under the Clinton regime.

Now, 12 years later, with Republican control of the Senate and the Presidency, true conservatism is again set for takeoff -- so what's keeping this would-be juggernaut on the launch pad?

Democrats? No, not really. In a word, it's the leadership of the Republican Party.

Indeed, DC scuttlebutt says that Pence was told his Contract: Renewed would be DOA when it hit the House floor. Sadly, the party in control is all too vulnerable to Lord Acton's famous maxim ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."), using earmarks, pork-barreling and other budgetary quid pro quos to stay in power. As evidence, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2006 Congressional Pig Book identifies 9,963 pork projects in 11 appropriation bills, totaling $29 billion for FY 2006 alone. Since 2003, says CAGW, congressional pork has increased by a staggering 29 percent.

Crusading reformers while out of power, the GOP in power seems seduced by Washington's tax-and-spend status quo. To make us feel better about it, it's now called "compassionate conservatism" -- an agenda thoroughly embodied in President Bush's 2005 Nanny State of the Union.
Where's the Republican leadership? It's a mixed bag. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist has a 92 percent overall approval rating by the American Conservative Union (ACU). Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a 96 percent ACU rating. Both have 95 percent ratings from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). In the House, where members are more responsive to their constituents, Speaker Dennis Hastert has a 100 percent ACU rating, as does the new Majority Leader, John Boehner. The ACU gives House Whip Roy Blunt a 96. Their ATR ratings are 100, 100 and 95, respectively. That's the good news.

But when it comes to government waste the story takes a different turn. CAGW gives Frist and McConnell a 66 and 69, respectively, while in the House, Hastert, Boehner and Blunt line up with scores of 50, 75 and 65. That's an average score of 65 -- an "F" -- for the Republican congressional leadership. With government waste out of control even among the otherwise moderate-conservative leadership, and no leadership on fiscal conservatism coming from the White House, the RSC agenda faces a tough, maybe insurmountable, hill to climb.

In Rep. Pence's words during the latest round of budget negotiations, "We must not let this moment pass. The American people long for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform and House conservatives are ready to stand with our leadership to do just that."
 Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative E-Journal of Record." You may contact him here.

JoeContrarian · May 6, 2006

http://patriotpost.us/news/pence.asp

Another Time for Choosing

By Congressman Mike Pence
Sep 29, 2005

The following are remarks by Congressman Mike Pence at a Young America's Foundation Capitol Hill event for interns on September 26, 2005.

I come today with a sense of privilege and gratitude. It's a privilege to speak to men and women from which will likely come the future of our Party and our nation. And gratitude to Young America's Foundation, who hosts me today, and who welcomed me last month to the home of my hero. A home nestled in the Santa Inez Mountains of California, Rancho del Cielo, the Reagan Ranch.

Thanks to YAF, my wife and our three small children spent a quiet day at the ranch. As we walked the grounds, toured the small house and stables, surveyed the sea and the valley between which this mountaintop home rests, I thought of the man Ronald Reagan. I thought of his Midwestern simplicity, his commitment to the ideals of our founders, and his human kindness even toward those with whom he differed.

As I looked across the landscape of the Reagan Ranch I knew why the President so often quoted that verse to visitors, "I look to the hills from where my help comes from...my help comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth." (Psalm 121)

Ronald Reagan's ideas inspired a nation and they inspire me still, and as I think of the example of President Reagan, and I think of the men and women with whom I serve in the 100-member House Republican Study Committee, I know that the baton has been passed to a new generation of conservative leaders.

Today in Congress, I am proud to report that a new generation of men and women aspire to do as those who went before, to do the work the American people have elected conservatives to do: to lead this country on behalf of limited government and traditional moral values.

But there is work to be done, with the national debt at nearly $8 trillion, over 26,000 for every American. In light of two consecutive sessions of Congress that saw a 52 percent increase in the Department of Education and the first new entitlement in 40 years, with record increases in federal spending in every branch of government.

Two years ago, I likened the conservative movement to a tall ship plying the open seas of a simpler time with a proud captain and a strong and accomplished crew, veering off course into the dangerous and uncharted waters of big government Republicanism.

For despite the enormous conservative achievements of the past four years, I saw troubling signs that the ship of conservative governance was off course.

As the next presidential election approaches and new Republican leaders emerge, I believe as a movement, as a party, as a nation, we have come to another time for choosing.

While Ronald Reagan said famously, "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" many Republicans see government increasingly as the solution to every social ill.

Our party and you, its rising generation of new leaders, face an age-old choice: A choice between the belief in limited government and tradition and the siren song of the central planner who says that "Big government is good government if it's our government."

Ronald Reagan spoke of this choice in his famed speech of October 1964: "You and I are told we must choose between a left or a right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream: the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

The 40th president summed up his generation's choice and ours as follows: "Whether we believe in our capacity for self government, or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them for ourselves."

Put another way, the conservative movement is at a crossroads in America. As the Republican Party did 40 years ago, today is another time for choosing whether we are committed to the ideals of limited government, fiscal discipline and traditional moral values or whether we will continue to sacrifice those principles on the altar of preserving our governing majority.

So how do we find our way forward as the new governing majority?

How do we ensure that a second Bush term and the 109th Congress reflect our party's commitment to limited government?

The answer may well lie in a tale of maritime valor nearly a century ago:

On 19 January 1915, after five months at sea, Sir Ernest Shackleton's ship Endurance was beset by an early ice pack in the seas north of Antarctica, ending abruptly their expedition to that frozen continent. After nine months wedged in the floating ice, the Endurance was crushed and sank in October of 1915, leaving the crew to winter five months on the ice flows until escaping to Elephant Island in April of 1916.

With supplies dwindling, Shackleton made the decision to take a single lifeboat in an attempt to cross 800 miles of the inhospitable ocean in the world, under hurricane conditions, in an attempt to reach South Georgia Island and help.

In the course of 16 tumultuous days, where celestial navigation was nearly impossible due to storm conditions, Shackleton and his skeleton crew chipped at 15 inches of ice forming on the boat and made the landfall using an ancient form of navigation known as "dead reckoning."

In dead reckoning, the navigator finds his course by measuring the course and distance he has sailed from some fixed position. If the navigator has a fixed starting position, by tracking heading and speed he can calculate the exact location of the ship at any time but navigation depends on knowing the location of the known starting point.

Dead reckoning saved the crew of the Endurance and dead reckoning can save the course of Republican governance in the 21st century.

Conservatives must dead reckon off the starting point of what we know to be true about the nature of government and we won't lose our way:

- Conservatives know that government that governs least governs best.

- Conservatives know that as government expands, freedom contracts.

- Conservatives know that government should never do for a man what he can and should do for himself.

- And Conservatives know that societies are judged by how they deal with the most vulnerable: the unborn, the aged, the infirm and the disabled.

As we navigate off of these fixed historical truths, the way forward is clear. We must rediscover the principles of limited government that brought our party to power in 1980 and 1994 and put them into practice.

This requires that conservatives have an agenda, built on the principles of limited government, an agenda which comprises what conservatives must do and what conservatives must undo in the 109th Congress.
What Conservatives Must Do

First, House Conservatives must be prepared to rally support in the Congress and throughout the country for the President's agenda where it conforms with the ideals of limited government.

The good news is that all of the "Big Three" agenda items outlined by the President in his State of the Union Address are worthy of vigorous conservative support:

- Modernizing Social Security by introducing the option of personal savings accounts for younger Americans

- Overhauling the Internal Revenue Code, without a tax increase, to achieve a system that is simpler and fairer for taxpaying Americans

- Reforming the legal system to end the hidden tax that frivolous lawsuits place on our manufacturing and health care economies

These are the priorities of President George W. Bush and they deserve to be the priorities of conservatives in Washington.

In addition to these "Big Three" goals, House conservatives should put on the green eyeshades to put our fiscal house in order, beginning with dealing with the aftermath of the worst natural catastrophe in American history.

Katrina breaks my heart, when I think of the storm and its tragic aftermath, I think of that story from Matthew: "And the rains descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on the house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock." (Matthew 7:25)

For most Americans, when a tree falls on your house, first you tend to the wounded, then you start the clean up, then you sit down and figure out how you're going to pay for it.

Thanks to swift and compassionate leadership by the President and our leaders in Congress, we are tending to the wounded and have begun the cleanup. But now is the time for Congress to begin to figure out how to pay for it.

Last week, dozens of House conservatives offered a broad range of suggested budget cuts to begin the debate over finding offsets in government spending to cover the incredible costs of this storm. The Washington Times called it a good start. The Washington Post called it stupid. We must be on the right track.

The debate has been difficult, but it will go forward, because we have a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The Democratic Party has made it clear how they would respond to this tragedy: tax and spend, tax and spend.

To that end, there are other priorities once we work past this crisis:

-Pass additional tax cuts (as the Republican Congress has done every year since 1994) to ensure continued economic growth.

-Pass fundamental budget process reform including a line-item veto

-Uphold any Presidential veto on a spending bill that exceeds the budget

-Take on wasteful government spending and actually eliminate outdated government programs

And as Reagan taught us, conservatives know that freedom means more than just actuarial perfection, it means gains in moral freedom. Congress must take action to free the American people from the cultural consequences of activist federal courts who would impose their view of morality, patriotism and our most cherished institutions on our communities and families. To do this, we must:

- Support the next conservative nominee to the Supreme Court

- Pass the Federal Marriage Amendment by a growing majority

- Pass additional legislative limitations on abortion, including parental notification and strengthening informed consent

- Pass the Incapacitated Persons Act to ensure that disabled Americans have access to the federal courts when their unalienable right to life is threatened by government action

-Pass legislation limiting jurisdiction over our most cherished symbols and free expression of faith in the public square.
What Conservatives Must Undo

In addition to what we must do, there is legislation that conservatives must undo to advance the freedom agenda:

First, conservatives must undo the damage to the First Amendment by reforming the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

BCRA violated the 1st Amendment directive that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

The summer of 527's has given the advocates of government restrictions on speech the excuse to try it again. We must seize the opportunity to reform our campaign finance laws in a manner that empowers political parties and restores the freedom of speech.

Second, conservatives must undo the Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement. In the prescription drug bill, a Republican Congress added an unfunded Medicare liability equal to the entire Social Security obligation.

Congress must repeal the entitlement elements of the prescription drug program that threaten to bankrupt our nation in the next century and drive millions of retirees into Medicare for prescription drug coverage.

Third, conservatives must undo the expansion of the federal government's role in our local schools by reforming the No Child Left Behind Act to embrace the principle that education is a state and local function.

Congress must return education spending in Washington to the block grant strategy of welfare reform, promoting school choice and innovation through resources, not red tape.

These are difficult days in which we live: Threats at home and abroad, expansion of government and erosion of values. But I am not discouraged nor should you be.

For these are the times in which Americans have always been at their best. Like those that Abigail Adams celebrated in a letter to her young son:

"These are times in which a genius would wish to live. It is not in the still calm of life or the repose of a pacific station that great characters are formed…the habits of a vigorous mind are formed in contending with difficulties…great necessities call out great virtues. When a mind is raised, and animated by scenes that engage the heart, those qualities which would otherwise lay dormant wake into life, and form the character of the hero and the statesman." (Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams, 19 Jan 1780)

So we have come to another time for choosing. And I have faith as other Americans of other times have done before. We will choose liberty.

I believe that we will choose liberty because despite the occasional difference of opinion, I believe in the leadership of this Congress, men and women of integrity and principle who work every day to bring the ideals of our founders into the well of the People's House.

I believe that we will choose liberty because I believe in the American people.

I believe that we will choose liberty because I believe in God.

I believe, as our founders did, as all of our greatest leaders did, that we are one nation under God, rich with a purpose yet to be fulfilled.

And I believe, with all my heart, that He who set this miracle of democracy on this, these wilderness shores, will give us the wisdom to know the right choice and the courage to make it as we choose the direction of our party and our nation in the 21st century.

For no matter how dark the day may seem, no matter how lost the cause of limited government and traditional moral values, we are confident knowing that the cause of freedom is not just our cause, but His: The author and finisher of our faith and the faith of our founders.

And so we say along with the poet:

"The woods are lovely dark and deep
But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep."

We have promises to keep for future generations of Americans in preserving, protecting and defending the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Thank you for the honor of addressing you and for all you do to keep the cause of conservative values alive in this shining city on the hill, this last best hope of earth, these United States of America. God bless you and the United States of America.

Rep. Mike Pence is chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

Phaedrus · May 6, 2006

Excellent stuff Joe. If only more people on the right could differentiate between a conservative platform and a Republican agenda, maybe more defectors and centrists would come back.

Phaedrus

Bush Lover · May 7, 2006

I would say that most folks have come to realize the GOP agenda is 100%
bullshit and that is the reason folks are going to vote for a change this November

bblight · May 7, 2006

Newt Gingrich rides again - all that we have to do is get rid of the Democrats that are now in charge - Frist and Hastert - and replace them with some real Republicans. We have to get that moron in the White House back on track - Then the Republican agenda can finally make it.

xpanda · May 7, 2006

I can't tell you how happy I am to see you denounce Frist, Blight. He scares the bejeesus out of me (much much more than Bush does or ever could) and I worry about him making a run at the presidency in 2008. He'd run on immigration, I'm sure, and could be a contender because of it.

Lawrence · May 7, 2006

I really hope Frist doesnt run, and I hope Hilary doesnt either..last thing we need after Bush leaves is someone who will further divide everyone and make evryone hate each other even more..I know people will still get partisan and attack whoever runs, but I think it would be wise to not run any divisive figures

xpanda · May 7, 2006

I'm on the anti-Hillary wagon, too. Of course, probably for different reasons .. I see her being as much of a warmonger as any of them. But Frist is just downright frightening, imo.

Lawrence · May 7, 2006

my thing is, realistically is there anyone at this point that wouldnt divide the country?

gopherbob · May 7, 2006

xpanda said:
I'm on the anti-Hillary wagon, too. Of course, probably for different reasons .. I see her being as much of a warmonger as any of them. But Frist is just downright frightening, imo.

no way frist runs, he's made way too many enemys in his own party.
people like trent lott never forgive and never forget.