The Conservative Dilemma
The Regan Era will be twenty years past in the next few months. A quarter of all Americans were not alive during his presidency. The brief exhilarating conservative sweep of congress in 1994 has faded, it’s Contract With America tarnished by later events. In the intervening years, a war has come, but not gone. Government spending and power has grown exponentially and social issues - unthinkable a few years ago - dominate the headlines: gay marriage, open borders and unlimited access to abortion. And for the first time in our history, a religion has become a potential enemy.
Nearing the summer of 2008, conservatives look to the future, not with optimism, but with genuine consternation. For many, the coming election spells doom in one form or another with the near certain expansion of a liberal majority in congress and the unhappy prospect of no presidential candidate they can support or put trust in.
It is the year of the conservative dilemma.
It’s symptoms are evident on every talk show, in the media and on the blogs. Conservatives speak openly of boycotting the election, voting for obscure candidates like Bob Barr, even forming a third party; hoping - in a replay of the twilight of the gods - for a democratic sweep which might later usher in a resurgent conservative movement and avoid blame for whatever ills occur in the meantime.
They loath Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and describe John McCain with the kind of language usually reserved for people who cut in line or splash muddy water as they drive by.
It is the Gotterdammerung theory - let the GOP and it’s untrustworthy candidate crash and burn in the hopes of a better tomorrow - which many, myself included, find most troubling. It borders on the “If I can’t have it, no one will” mode of nihilism which may satisfy one’s angst, but can guarantee nothing better in the future. It is, in effect, the elevation of political philosophy above national interest, and it assumes, naively, that the damage done over the next 48 to 96 months can be undone by a future conservative government. It is a reckless theory which ignores the fact that social security is nearing it’s 75th anniversary and no one has been able to undo it.
No aspect of the conservative dilemma is more troubling than the future of the Supreme Court, the one branch of government which serves as a political and social time capsule, projecting the values of one generation into the future to be imposed on the next.
Should Barack Obama and a liberal congress persevere for eight years, the makeup and character of the high court - not to mention hundreds of lesser federal bench appointments - could continue on an activist course for the next 25 years or more. The 9th Circuit comes to mind.
For conservatives, there exists a myriad of reasons not to vote for John McCain. But it may be worth noting that McCain has vowed never to nominate an activist judge to the bench and vigorously supported the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court.
As president, he would face a hostile senate, but so did George Bush when Roberts and Alito were confirmed. Barack Obama, on the other hand, would have a liberal senate at his disposal and has stated - in vague and ominous terms - his preference for “compassionate judges who understand the needs of regular people.” In short, the very future of the Supreme Court and the sanctity of the Constitution are at stake in 2008.
So, what to do? There’s the dilemma. Choose wisely.
pparets 17 May 2008
Nearing the summer of 2008, conservatives look to the future, not with optimism, but with genuine consternation. For many, the coming election spells doom in one form or another with the near certain expansion of a liberal majority in congress and the unhappy prospect of no presidential candidate they can support or put trust in.
It is the year of the conservative dilemma.
It’s symptoms are evident on every talk show, in the media and on the blogs. Conservatives speak openly of boycotting the election, voting for obscure candidates like Bob Barr, even forming a third party; hoping - in a replay of the twilight of the gods - for a democratic sweep which might later usher in a resurgent conservative movement and avoid blame for whatever ills occur in the meantime.
They loath Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and describe John McCain with the kind of language usually reserved for people who cut in line or splash muddy water as they drive by.
It is the Gotterdammerung theory - let the GOP and it’s untrustworthy candidate crash and burn in the hopes of a better tomorrow - which many, myself included, find most troubling. It borders on the “If I can’t have it, no one will” mode of nihilism which may satisfy one’s angst, but can guarantee nothing better in the future. It is, in effect, the elevation of political philosophy above national interest, and it assumes, naively, that the damage done over the next 48 to 96 months can be undone by a future conservative government. It is a reckless theory which ignores the fact that social security is nearing it’s 75th anniversary and no one has been able to undo it.
No aspect of the conservative dilemma is more troubling than the future of the Supreme Court, the one branch of government which serves as a political and social time capsule, projecting the values of one generation into the future to be imposed on the next.
Should Barack Obama and a liberal congress persevere for eight years, the makeup and character of the high court - not to mention hundreds of lesser federal bench appointments - could continue on an activist course for the next 25 years or more. The 9th Circuit comes to mind.
For conservatives, there exists a myriad of reasons not to vote for John McCain. But it may be worth noting that McCain has vowed never to nominate an activist judge to the bench and vigorously supported the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court.
As president, he would face a hostile senate, but so did George Bush when Roberts and Alito were confirmed. Barack Obama, on the other hand, would have a liberal senate at his disposal and has stated - in vague and ominous terms - his preference for “compassionate judges who understand the needs of regular people.” In short, the very future of the Supreme Court and the sanctity of the Constitution are at stake in 2008.
So, what to do? There’s the dilemma. Choose wisely.
pparets 17 May 2008
