à - Robert D. Novak (columnist): “What really makes a conservative is whether you think the government always is the problem rather than the solution. I became a conservative in 1976 when I came to the conclusion—based on close observation as a reporter of how Washington worked—that it was the problem.”
à - Trent Lott (U.S. senator from Mississippi): “I am a conservative because I feel as Thomas Jefferson did, that the best government is the government closest to the people and that the federal government should be held in check whenever possible. . . . I believe in a strong national defense because all our other freedoms and liberties could be lost without that.”
à - Edwin Meese III (Reagan’s attorney general): “The characteristics of a conservative society include individual liberty, limited government, and free-market economics.”
à - Grover Norquist (conservative activist): “The sole legitimate function of government is to create and protect liberty. That is why we have courts, police, and a national army. To keep out, stop, or punish those who would infringe on our liberty. . . . [T]he center-right coalition is a coalition of groups and individuals that—on the issues that moves them to vote—wish to be left alone by the central government. Gun owners do not want their Second Amendment rights infringed upon. Property owners do not want their property rights interfered with. . . . Businessmen and -women do not want their businesses taxed and regulated. Homeschoolers want to raise their own children. And all communities of faith—evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons— all want to be able to practice their faith free of government coercion.”
à - Edwin J. Feulner (president, Heritage Foundation): “A philosophy that believes that, while government is necessary, it should be limited.
. . . Conservatives believe that individual liberty is protected by the preservation of national sovereignty, making national defense a high moral duty.”
à - Chuck Hagel (U.S. senator from Nebraska): “Individual rights, limited government, free trade, fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and limited foreign entanglements make up my philosophy of governance.”
à - Katherine Harris (former U.S. representative from Florida): “I am conservative because I believe in the fundamental values of limited government and unlimited prosperity through lower taxes, less regulation, and responsible stewardship of the public purse.”
à - Orrin Hatch (U.S. senator from Utah): “We believe the answer lay in lower taxes, less government, fewer regulations, less centralized power, and a wiser use of the power that must be exercised on behalf of the people.”
Democrats would no doubt agree with some of these general statements, but I doubt they would subscribe to the near universal assumption by conservatives that government is a burden. The negativity toward government in contemporary conservative thinking raises the question of why these people ever enter public service at the national level, other than to dismantle the federal government by lowering taxes and abolishing programs and agencies. It should come as no surprise that Republicans have twisted and distorted government processes to their breaking points, given this mind-set. Of course, Republicans proudly proclaim that they love their country; they love their flag; they love their automatic weapons; they love their Constitution; and they love their democracy, given the alternatives. But where the federal government is concerned: It is too big, too powerful, too expensive, too lax in demanding morality, and too invasive with all its health and safety requirements to be able to run a really profitable business. Republicans want to starve the federal government and shrink it in Grover Norquist’s infamous formulation, so they can “drown it in a bathtub.”
Out of curiosity, I have from time to time checked to see what people do when they leave high-level government service, in particular the subcabinet-level appointmentees and members of the White House staff. There is a rather consistent pattern of those who work in Republican administrations going on to join businesses, and profiting from their government experience, while those from Democratic administrations continue with some form of public service, whether returning to academic life, affiliation with nonprofit and charitable foundations, and even further government service. Of course there are many exceptions to these patterns, but what I did discover confirmed what I had come to realize when I was active in the inner circles of my old party:
Republicans seek federal power because it can help them achieve their agenda, and it also helps them in their careers. Few are driven to assist their fellow citizens, or to serve their country. It is power that attracts them; it is a tropism for authoritarian personalities, like the moth to the candle. Where power is concerned, Republicans consistently confirm Lord Acton’s aphorism that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As I explained in Conservatives Without Conscience, inconsistent thinking has become common in Republicans, which is apparent in brief statements I have quoted from Mike Deaver’s book about conservative beliefs. All conservatives hold dear the principles of a limited federal government and correspondingly lower federal taxes, and the decentralization of power. Yet, as will be discussed in the following pages, contemporary conservatives have abandoned the long-held concern of conservatism about the dangers inherent in aggregations of power. Post- Watergate conservative Republicans now embrace the notion of a neo- Nixonian presidency, one that calls for a chief executive to be always wearing his commander-in-chief uniform, constantly strutting about flexing his muscles, and beating the other branches of government into less than constitutionally coequal status. Nixon’s GOP successors have picked up where he left off in expanding presidential powers, focusing in particular on dominating national security and ideologically transforming the federal judiciary.
Each of the three coordinate branches of government is addressed in the following three chapters, with an unavoidable overlap in the discussions because of the inherent overlap in the system. I have not sought to prepare laundry lists of all the broken processes that affect each branch of the federal government; instead, I have identified what I believe to be the major breakdowns in areas where I have personal knowledge, and also have consulted the expertise of others who have concluded that the process is not working as it was designed. For example, the growth of special-interest lobbying that has occurred in Washington when Republicans controlled Congress is startling. Former majority leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who resigned from Congress when he was indicted for money laundering in Texas, proudly admitted in his autobiography No Retreat, No Surrender that he allowed lobbyists to draft legislation.
“With the start of the Republican revolution I was trying to deregulate everything I could to get government off the backs of people, as Ronald Reagan said, and liberate the private sector to achieve its best,” DeLay explains. “If you want to get government regulations off the backs of energy producers, for example, talk to the energy producers about how government gets in their way. Then get their government affairs people to help you draft legislation. You’ll certainly get better results than you would by talking to the Environmental Protection Agency or the energy experts at Harvard.”37 This, of course, is the type of conduct that offends most Americans, for it benefits special interests rather than the regulating businesses in a manner that protects national health and welfare. While energy lobbyists have had a bonanza with Republicans controlling government, lobbying itself is not unconstitutional.
To the contrary, the Constitution assures Americans that they can petition their government, so I have not raised it as a point of discussion.
Likewise, because I have written previously about the dysfunctions of the legislative and executive branches, and because they are thoroughly covered by the mainstream media, I have provided only a brief history or background when examining the damage Republican rule has done to them. For most Americans the federal judiciary is the least known branch. Few people are aware how Republican presidents have spent the last four decades remaking the judiciary in their own image, and in so doing have politicized—and diminished—the nonpolitical branch.
If I could turn on a blinking red light to catch a reader’s attention, to give him a heads-up to alert him to pay attention, I would place it next to the following observations of political scientist Alan Wolfe:* “Political parties expend the time and grueling energy to control government for different reasons,” he explained, viewing politics with his wide-angle lens.
à - Trent Lott (U.S. senator from Mississippi): “I am a conservative because I feel as Thomas Jefferson did, that the best government is the government closest to the people and that the federal government should be held in check whenever possible. . . . I believe in a strong national defense because all our other freedoms and liberties could be lost without that.”
à - Edwin Meese III (Reagan’s attorney general): “The characteristics of a conservative society include individual liberty, limited government, and free-market economics.”
à - Grover Norquist (conservative activist): “The sole legitimate function of government is to create and protect liberty. That is why we have courts, police, and a national army. To keep out, stop, or punish those who would infringe on our liberty. . . . [T]he center-right coalition is a coalition of groups and individuals that—on the issues that moves them to vote—wish to be left alone by the central government. Gun owners do not want their Second Amendment rights infringed upon. Property owners do not want their property rights interfered with. . . . Businessmen and -women do not want their businesses taxed and regulated. Homeschoolers want to raise their own children. And all communities of faith—evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons— all want to be able to practice their faith free of government coercion.”
. . . Conservatives believe that individual liberty is protected by the preservation of national sovereignty, making national defense a high moral duty.”
à - Chuck Hagel (U.S. senator from Nebraska): “Individual rights, limited government, free trade, fiscal responsibility, balanced budget, and limited foreign entanglements make up my philosophy of governance.”
à - Katherine Harris (former U.S. representative from Florida): “I am conservative because I believe in the fundamental values of limited government and unlimited prosperity through lower taxes, less regulation, and responsible stewardship of the public purse.”
à - Orrin Hatch (U.S. senator from Utah): “We believe the answer lay in lower taxes, less government, fewer regulations, less centralized power, and a wiser use of the power that must be exercised on behalf of the people.”
Democrats would no doubt agree with some of these general statements, but I doubt they would subscribe to the near universal assumption by conservatives that government is a burden. The negativity toward government in contemporary conservative thinking raises the question of why these people ever enter public service at the national level, other than to dismantle the federal government by lowering taxes and abolishing programs and agencies. It should come as no surprise that Republicans have twisted and distorted government processes to their breaking points, given this mind-set. Of course, Republicans proudly proclaim that they love their country; they love their flag; they love their automatic weapons; they love their Constitution; and they love their democracy, given the alternatives. But where the federal government is concerned: It is too big, too powerful, too expensive, too lax in demanding morality, and too invasive with all its health and safety requirements to be able to run a really profitable business. Republicans want to starve the federal government and shrink it in Grover Norquist’s infamous formulation, so they can “drown it in a bathtub.”
Out of curiosity, I have from time to time checked to see what people do when they leave high-level government service, in particular the subcabinet-level appointmentees and members of the White House staff. There is a rather consistent pattern of those who work in Republican administrations going on to join businesses, and profiting from their government experience, while those from Democratic administrations continue with some form of public service, whether returning to academic life, affiliation with nonprofit and charitable foundations, and even further government service. Of course there are many exceptions to these patterns, but what I did discover confirmed what I had come to realize when I was active in the inner circles of my old party:
Republicans seek federal power because it can help them achieve their agenda, and it also helps them in their careers. Few are driven to assist their fellow citizens, or to serve their country. It is power that attracts them; it is a tropism for authoritarian personalities, like the moth to the candle. Where power is concerned, Republicans consistently confirm Lord Acton’s aphorism that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As I explained in Conservatives Without Conscience, inconsistent thinking has become common in Republicans, which is apparent in brief statements I have quoted from Mike Deaver’s book about conservative beliefs. All conservatives hold dear the principles of a limited federal government and correspondingly lower federal taxes, and the decentralization of power. Yet, as will be discussed in the following pages, contemporary conservatives have abandoned the long-held concern of conservatism about the dangers inherent in aggregations of power. Post- Watergate conservative Republicans now embrace the notion of a neo- Nixonian presidency, one that calls for a chief executive to be always wearing his commander-in-chief uniform, constantly strutting about flexing his muscles, and beating the other branches of government into less than constitutionally coequal status. Nixon’s GOP successors have picked up where he left off in expanding presidential powers, focusing in particular on dominating national security and ideologically transforming the federal judiciary.
Each of the three coordinate branches of government is addressed in the following three chapters, with an unavoidable overlap in the discussions because of the inherent overlap in the system. I have not sought to prepare laundry lists of all the broken processes that affect each branch of the federal government; instead, I have identified what I believe to be the major breakdowns in areas where I have personal knowledge, and also have consulted the expertise of others who have concluded that the process is not working as it was designed. For example, the growth of special-interest lobbying that has occurred in Washington when Republicans controlled Congress is startling. Former majority leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), who resigned from Congress when he was indicted for money laundering in Texas, proudly admitted in his autobiography No Retreat, No Surrender that he allowed lobbyists to draft legislation.
“With the start of the Republican revolution I was trying to deregulate everything I could to get government off the backs of people, as Ronald Reagan said, and liberate the private sector to achieve its best,” DeLay explains. “If you want to get government regulations off the backs of energy producers, for example, talk to the energy producers about how government gets in their way. Then get their government affairs people to help you draft legislation. You’ll certainly get better results than you would by talking to the Environmental Protection Agency or the energy experts at Harvard.”37 This, of course, is the type of conduct that offends most Americans, for it benefits special interests rather than the regulating businesses in a manner that protects national health and welfare. While energy lobbyists have had a bonanza with Republicans controlling government, lobbying itself is not unconstitutional.
To the contrary, the Constitution assures Americans that they can petition their government, so I have not raised it as a point of discussion.
Likewise, because I have written previously about the dysfunctions of the legislative and executive branches, and because they are thoroughly covered by the mainstream media, I have provided only a brief history or background when examining the damage Republican rule has done to them. For most Americans the federal judiciary is the least known branch. Few people are aware how Republican presidents have spent the last four decades remaking the judiciary in their own image, and in so doing have politicized—and diminished—the nonpolitical branch.
If I could turn on a blinking red light to catch a reader’s attention, to give him a heads-up to alert him to pay attention, I would place it next to the following observations of political scientist Alan Wolfe:* “Political parties expend the time and grueling energy to control government for different reasons,” he explained, viewing politics with his wide-angle lens.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
