Morton Kondracke pens what should become the RINO creed:
Political moderates predominate in the U.S. electorate, but the two parties are increasingly captives of their extremes. Will the moderates ever rise up and assert themselves?
In the Republican Party, they ought to do so by defending Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) against right-wing attacks for bucking President Bush (and Christian conservatives) over embryonic stem-cell research.
Republican moderates also ought to start speaking up for “emergency contraception” before the right makes banning it a litmus test of party loyalty. Someone in the GOP ought to tell Bush that “intelligent design” is not a true scientific theory on a par with evolution. And moderates need to fight at the state level to prevent “ID” from being required teaching in biology classes.
Except for Log Cabin Republicans and the Republican Unity Coalition, does anyone in the GOP dare to come out for civil unions for homosexuals and to resist the party’s reliance on gay-bashing to win elections?
It’s almost impossible for a pro-choice candidate to get the GOP presidential nomination, but anti-abortion mania could be the undoing of the party in the long run if Bush installs a U.S. Supreme Court that actually overturns the Roe v. Wade decision, as the religious right expects him to do.
Guess I am a ‘moderate.’ Dunno when that happened. I thought I was a conservative until the last few years of lunacy. And to be quite honest, I really don’t care if Roe is overturned, if it is overturned for appropriate legal arguments. I have yet to find a compelling argument that Roe was good law (with the usual caveat that I am just a loudmouth and not a lawyer).
(via Bill)
gratefulcub
Republicans are the better party because they don’t break ranks. Democrats can’t agree on anything. unfortunately the leadership is who they are. There are a bunch of moderate people on the GOP side in washington that look like right wing extemists. It’s sad. If you step out of line you get cannabalized by your own party. Specter seems to have regrown his backbone, that is a bonus.
Geek, Esq.
Regarding Roe–
The problem isn’t that it was bad law–rather it’s a bad subject for the law to govern.
The core idea behind Roe–the right to be left alone–is one with wide support in the US and is viewed by many (including myself) as in indispensable aspect of liberty.
However, that right to be left alone runs head-on to a metaphysical question–when does that little thing inside a woman become a human being?
99% of the positions taken on the abortion issue can be traced to when a person believes a fetus becomes a human being.
The only time you social moderates are going to have any kind of influence in that party is when you’re willing to vote D or at least stay home in droves. Right now, moderate DINO’s are more loyal than the wingnuts, which is why the Wingnuts have so much more influence in the party.
The RNC knows that if they offend the wingnuts, Dobson & Co. will stay home to punish them. RINO’s will grumble and bitch and complain, and then go hold their nose and vote Republican every time.
To prove my point:
The wingnuts threatened to withdraw their support for the RNC if Bush picked a pro-choice conservative.
Have you heard ANY Libertarian or RINO express concerns about John Roberts and his past hostility towards the right to privacy?
Tony Dismukes
“Guess I am a ‘moderate.’ Dunno when that happened. I thought I was a conservative until the last few years of lunacy.”
That’s okay. I used to think I was a moderate. Now I seem to be a liberal. I don’t think it’s us that’s moving.
Alex Roberts
Bill,
“You have yet to find a compelling arguement that Roe was a good law” My god man! Pull your head out. Any law that insures personal freedoms over government dictates is a good law. This is America, remember, land of the free. It’s a woman’s own body & she should have a right to choose whether or not she wishes to bring a child into the world, you dim wit! Or maybe you just see women as right-less pieces of property to be used any way you see fit.
John Cole
I don’t know if Judge Roberts is hostile towards a right to privacy. It may be that he is hostile to the notion that there IS a right to privacy somewhere in the Constitution.
Rusty Shackleford
Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.
SomeCallMeTim
t may be that he is hostile to the notion that there IS a right to privacy somewhere in the Constitution.
Which is bad enough on it’s own. (Though I tend to think the “right to privacy” that we’re talking about here would be better formulated, and better supported, as a “right to autonomy.”)
Tractarian
That’s exactly right. And in the same vein, 99% of the positions taken on gay rights can be traced to if a person believes that one’s sexual orientation is a “choice.”
The Roe issue has an additional complication in the fact that the issues of 1) reproductive rights and 2) the legal validity of the Roe decision itself, are often conflated and they really shouldn’t be. Any politican who can separate the two – instead of trying to further confuse people – will get my vote. (Then again, I’m a lawyer too, so maybe this is too much to ask.)
Slightly off-topic here, but I believe the Democrats would quickly regain power if they defused the abortion issue. How? By introducing a constitutional amendment embracing a compromise that would replace Roe, as follows:
1) First trimester abortions are a guaranteed right;
2) Second trimester abortions in the absence of medical emergency may be outlawed by the states if they choose; and
3) Third trimester abortions are banned except in the case of medical emergency.
No, the Dobsonites won’t like it, and neither will NARAL. But to me, rejection of both extremist camps is the highest compliment.
Mike S
I keep hearing that the Dem party is held “captive” by the extreme left. The thing is, I have yet to see it. Harry Reid is a pro life dem who can only be described as a moderate. Most of the most visible dem Senators are moderate. Love her or hate her, Hillary has taken moderate stands on most issues. Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, hated but powerfull.
Can the same be said for the new Republican party?
BinkyBoy
Roe v. Wade isn’t just about abortion, although thats why it came to the Supreme Court. The basic reason why Roe v. Wade is important is it grants the right to privacy about everything. Focusing on Roe v. Wade only because of abortion is a strong case for those wishing to overturn it.
Understanding that the Supreme Court believes that the Constitution grants a Freedom of Privacy should NEVER be questioned, and if reframed by the Democrats and other supporters of Roe v. Wade as such an argument there would never be a realistic challenge made ever again.
Zifnab
Honestly, I don’t understand this big RINO thing. Very rarely have I ever seen or heard of a DINO before, as the Democrats tend to run the entire political spectrum – from social conservatively fiscal liberal to fiscally conservative social liberal. So long as one foot is in the blue, you’re welcome at the DNC.
It’s because of concepts like RINO that the Republican party has such a hard time. One of the reasons the Republican party remained viable and functional before 1994 was because they were often able to weddle over a few Democrates to their side whenever a vote came up. Democrates broke rank all the time for principle, for profit, for politics, and occationally for their constituancy.
In my opinion, one of the dumbest moments in the past legislative session was when Voinovich publicly announced how much he reviled John Bolton and then proceeded to let the guy out of committee. And Voinovich is a prime candidate for RINO-hood. A guy who wouldn’t vote against his own party when he was spewing verbal vomit over the guy he just voted FOR just a few moments earlier.
Geek, Esq.
Same difference for a judge.
To put it another way:
Do you think the state has the authority, under its social contract with us, to regulate each and every aspect of your personal life? Can it tell you what time you can eat breakfast? Can it tell you to drink tea pinky-up or pinky-down?
Tractarian
Why shouldn’t it be questioned? There is simply nothing in the language of the constitution that guarantees a right of privacy. That’s not to say there shouldn’t be such a right – on the contrary, I think it’s absolutely vital to our freedom and our survival as a democracy. But the fact is that our founding fathers obviously did not think a right to privacy was vital, otherwise they would have spelled it out clearly.
Perhaps my proposal above for a constitutional amendment regarding abortion should be coupled with another amendment explicitly providing for a general right to privacy.
Don Surber
I disagree with Frist on embryonic stem cell research, so am I outa the RINO club?
I chalk this column up to August blues. Nothing happening. Gotta write about something.
Ill-researched to boot!
“Does anyone in the GOP dare to come out for civil unions for homosexuals?”
Yes. His name is President Bush.
I don’t need no idiot in Washington telling me to think for myself. Duh
Geek, Esq.
Your punishment is to write the text of the 9th Amendment on the blackboard 100 times.
jg
That happened to me too.
I can’t understand how people can say there’s no right to privacy in the constitution. The whole fucking document is about how little the government can interfere in the individuals life while still maintaining a government. Does it really need to explicitly say ‘right to privacy’?
Defense Guy
Not addressed to me, but this is a no-brainer. The answer is no, at least under US law. The government may not do anything it has not been given express permission by the law to do. Now, this does not mean that in the issue of abortion, the government can have no say.
If governments are instituted among men to protect the rights granted by a higher power, and if chief amongst those possessions must be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or property), then it is clear in an issue when the first right is on the line (life), the government can claim a right to regulate. Why this is even a major issue, is because it is framed in such a way as to indicate that it may not yet be life, and it to regulate it in that case is to run afoul of the second right (liberty). Is that the social contract you are referring to?
demimondian
Reading O’Connor in Casey V. Planned Parenthood is what every person who disses R v. W ought to read. She lays out the historical basis of substantive due process enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment in great detail, and then basically says “If you accept sdp, then you have to accept some decision like Roe.”
RSA
Come on, John, haven’t you noticed how pointers to your site are sometimes given as “Ballon Juice”? Typo, or subtle reference to the increasing Frenchness of your views? You decide.
Caroline
I agree with Mike S. I have been to a Dem meeting and the people are pretty mainstream-going by national standards. My friends have been to GOP meetings and say that they are stacked with fundamentalist rapturists. Of course, I live in SC which is probably one of the most fundamentalist states in the nation.
Of course, calling the Dem’s extremist is the way the GOP tries to keep some supporters in line.
JavaTenor
I recently saw a graph (which I can’t seem to find anymore) of the relative political views of Senators, based on an analysis of their votes, and graphed from left to right on the political spectrum. For a large portion of the 20th century, this graph was a pretty straightforward bell curve, with most of the Senators falling somewhere in the middle 50%. By the end of the century, this had morphed into two distinct clusters, one on the left and one on the right. I don’t know how we can fix this to better reflect the moderation of most Americans without a serious reform of the system, however.
And context certainly matters, as you mentioned. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but that probably puts me on the conservative end of the spectrum for my current hometown of San Francisco.
Peter T.
I used to be a middle of the roader too. They moved the road.
Neoconservatism under Bush is not a coherent philosophy. Rather, it’s the confluence of opportunism and expediency. Social conservatives think they’re going to roll back history (the fools), American Likudniks think the Middle East is going to be pacified (might fall short there), and various wealthy American constituencies wanted a big taxcut (and did they ever get it.) Likudniks will tolerate the hicks and the rich to get their goal, the hicks and hayseeds are pro-Likudniks because they’re making way in Israel for the end times, and the rich don’t give a damn because a) their kids aren’t going to wind up in Iraq and b) even if the hicks pass some medieval social legislation it will never touch them, cuz they’re rich.
It’s too bad that so many people just look for the R (or the D) after a candidate’s name, rather than really evaluating the candidate’s policies.
Doug
Just because I think this is an important point, particularly with respect to those who sneer at penumbras and the unenumerated right to privacy, the 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
tzs
Also please remember when the Constitution was written. Speaking as someone who has studied legal history (particularly Roman and Medieval law), most of the arguing about rights in the Declaration of Independence is lifted directly from a very strong tradition in Western law, which was formed from an intertwining of Roman law, Religious doctrine, and Natural Law–I have seen the exact same phrases in consilia by late-medieval jurists such as Baldus and Bartolus (the originator of the “civitas sibi princeps” used to argue for the self-rule of Italian city states.) Much of what we consider “human rights” has sprung off arguements about Natural Law. Since Natural Law was considered a GIVEN (and, at that point, taken for granted throughout Europe) the Founding Fathers would have felt no need to itemize the already-accepted list of rights traditionally associated with it. The Constitution would have been considered in ADDITION to Natural Law, not as a replacement.
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten the whole Natural Law philosophy and replaced it with a more extended but wimpier “human rights” which far too many politicians seem to treat as a nice-to-have-if-you-want-and-have-taxes-to-pay-for-it schtick. The EU in particular has been indefatiguable in extending “human rights”–to a point that has greatly diluted its effectiveness, in my opinion.
Natural Law rights used to be much more restricted–but much more powerful. No human law was considered strong enough to supercede them.
SomeCallMeTim
Natural Law rights used to be much more restricted—but much more powerful. No human law was considered strong enough to supercede them.
IIRC, the idea of “natural law” was also tied to a belief that these were, indeed, natural laws – like the laws of physics. If you wanted to lead a “Good Life,” you had to obey said laws; you couldn’t avoid it, in the same way you couldn’t avoid gravity.
That belief pretty much went out the window in the 20th Century. Belief in “natural law” now is, IIRC, disfavored.
tBone
Yup, me too. The tricky thing is, they didn’t change the road signs. Who’s gonna get the job of washing the blood off the pavement and scraping up the roadkill?
Geek, Esq.
Isn’t Clarence Thomas a big natural law proponent?
It’s an interesting concept–I believe it dates back to Aquinas.
tzs
Natural Law:
Indeed, the belief in Natural Law went out the window in the 20th century, unfortunately with nothing to replace it. That’s why present U.S. law is, in my opinion, operating in an unbalanced fashion. Natural Law philosophy used to present a check on human law. (The EU, with their emphasis on human rights, still seem to have kept the tradition, albeit in a changed form.)
Most of what we are doing down at Gitmo would not be allowed under the rules of the Inquisition, by the way. A lot of the checks-and-balances for trials and rights of the accused date from the Inquisition’s rules–many of which were, in turn, argued from Natural Law. BTW, from a Natural Law viewpoint, whether terrorists fall under the Geneva protocols or not is irrelevant.
Defense Guy
To be fair, from a natural law perspective, abortion would not be legal.
tzs
The question of whether abortion would or would not be legal under a natural law perspective would fall back on competing rights (and definitions of “life” again, so it doesn’t clarify anything.) Remember, just because Aquinas had an opinion on abortion and used a lot of Natural Law arguments does not mean his opinions on abortion would be the final judgment. (And wasn’t he one of the “it’s not life until it “quickens”? crowd?)
The one thing I can say, flat out, is if the mother’s life was at stake, Natural Law would argue FOR an abortion. The whole self-defense thingy and all that, y’know.
Cyrus
Will the moderates ever rise up and assert themselves?
In the Republican Party, they ought to do so by defending Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) against right-wing attacks…
A breathtaking, humbling sign of the times.
Defense Guy
As would I, up to the point where the mothers clear expressed wishes contradicted me.
Tractarian
There you go. No explicit reference to a right to privacy there either. Combine that with the 10th Amendment…
… and it’s clear, at least to me, that the 9th Amendment allows the states to protect rights that aren’t enumerated, but the federal government (including the Supreme Court) is limited to protecting those that are enumerated.
tzs
Yeah, I was thinking about adding a sentence in there about “unless she wishes to sacrifice herself, of course.” My bad.
Most of our present messiness about abortion has been due to a) knowing more of actually what’s going on in there (no, the sperm isn’t a little homunculus and the woman is more than a passive receptacle, hey, eggs!) and b) better technology. Our language (and our ethics) haven’t figured out what the new dividing lines are. (And with ever-advancing technology, may never catch up.)
Personally, I’d like to see uterine replicators developed, just to see the tizzy that would send everyone into. I’m a great believer in using technology to confront people with their unconscious assumptions about concepts and language.
jg
The ninth amendment says that even though we only mentioned certain rights in the previous 8 amendments that doesn’t mean there aren’t many more and you CAN’T use the fact that all rights weren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights as some argument that other rights aren’t guaranteed.
The fact that certain rights were explicitly stated can’t be used to deny our other basic rights.
The 10th amendment has to do with POWERS not RIGHTS.
tzs
I’m wondering if the “reserved…to the people” isn’t an echo of the Lex Regia and the Resistance movement, etc.
The Lex Regia is the law in Roman Law under which the “authority of the Roman people” was allocated–by the will of the Roman people–into the Emperor. However, notwithstanding all the authority and the “princeps legibus solutus est” (the prince is released from the laws), it was also taken as a given that this delegation-of-authority could always be rescinded, i.e., it did not reside in the Emperor indefinitely. Which provided the seed from which Resistance theory grew in the 16th century. (Divine right of Kings is in fact later and I don’t know anything about it)
Anyway, this reservation of the rights of the Roman people as a potential balancing authority remains all throughout medieval law and is always thrown in when discussing authority. So I’m not surprised to find an echo of it here.
Geek, Esq.
The relevant text for the states is actually the 14th Amendment, which protects “life, liberty, and property.”
You entirely missed the point of the 9th Amendment. Completely. It sailed right over your head.
Zifnab
The founding fathers were big on throwing in caveats in favor of the individual. The first amendment alone tries to cover every form of expression imaginable.
TallDave
Good stuff, thanks for sharing.
Defense Guy
It occured to me that if we were approaching the conversation of abortion rights from the point of view of natural law, then it would be fair to point out that the historical precedent would have the conversation shift to one of property, as women would not even be consulted.
carot
I’m not an economist, but the way I see it Bush has no intention or desire to solve these problems. Liberals tend to think in terms of solving problems, Conservatives in terms of containing problems.
In fact the worst thing Conservatives can do is to solve problems and not create enough problems. Look for example at the problems they created in Iraq, terrorism, and North Korea, problems which voters believe that only conservatives can fix. If they hadn’t created those problems, or had solved them by now then they would be out of government. So their strategy is to never solve them if they can help it.
In the same way Conservatives create economic problems that cement their grip on power. They spend too much, power taxes too much and create deficits and debt. Of course they could fix this problem if they wanted to. They create a problem though that voters typically believe that Conservatives can fix, that Liberals would tax and spend even more. So as long as the problem is contained and never solved the Conservatives remain in power.
They do the same thing with abortion. The last thing Conservatives want is for Roe versus Wade to be repealed then Christians don’t need conservatives on their side.
Some of these discussions remind me of a cartoon I saw years ago where the Devil set up a suggestion box in Hell. It showed the Devil laughing as he read the suggestions, while the ever hopeful inhabitants of Hell worked out more suggestions of how to improve things (Turn the flames down, etc).
None of these problems will be solved or this economic advice followed by conservatives. All these crises will be carefully managed near the tipping point, enough to keep people voting for them.
Eventually those pesky Liberals will get into power and like Clinton solve many of these problems, then the conservatives will have to recreate these crises all over again.
Defense Guy
A very self serving view of the world no doubt.
EZSmirkzz
It was typo John, and I fixed it. Apologies for leaving you open to cheap shots.
mac Buckets
Wow. I’m not sure how funny you were trying to be, or if you are just campaigning for the Kool-Aid© Partisan of the Day Award. You free-thinker…
ppGaz
Oh, brother. As I often say, sooner or later you will see everything in here.
Amen, Brother Geek.
And wingnuts think in terms of exploiting problems.
Word up, Founders!
But eating your young would be.
carot
“Wow. I’m not sure how funny you were trying to be, or if you are just campaigning for the Kool-Aid© Partisan of the Day Award. You free-thinker…”
Well I’m not necessarily saying their strategy is evil. It’s very easy for a political party to get into problem fixing mode, but all they do is make themselves no longer needed. This is what happened to Clinton, he did such a good job on the economy it was no longer an important issue in the 2000 election.
The conservatives did the same thing with the Cold War, Reagan did such a good job that it led the way for more left wing governments all over the world to be elected. Clinton would have been seen as too soft on national defense but he got in on the basis the national defense was safe with the fall of Communism.
Conservatives tend to get in a mindset that their job is to get the nation’s finances in order, but that means that get kicked out and only let back in when they need to be fixed again.
I think Reagan and Bush 1 started to wise up to that, not to work themselves out of a job. Then it was up to Clinton to do the normal Conservative job of balancing the books.
Also it is often not a good things to solve problems that are better off contained. For example one could solve poverty by increasing welfare enough but this would make the country poorer overall and demotivate many people. It is better sometimes to manage the poverty with police locking up protesters and hoping the people work their way out of it.
Israel has a classic problem that the Labour left wants to solve with a peace treaty giving away more land, and Sharon on the right wants to manage by making Israel secure in a forever war with the Palestinians. Sharon wants to give back Gaza to have more manageable borders, nothing more. Only time will tell which approach is right.
If people wanted to solve the Iraq problem they just had to make a deal with Saddam to stay in power with enough inspectors permanently stationed there. Managing the problem got rid of him creating a long term insurgency which hopefully will not be too expensive. It was likely the intention to put Chalabi in there as a replacement dictator to Saddam to manage the radicals like totalitarian governments do for the US in nearly every other Middle Eastern country.
Then the State Department talked Bush into trying to solve the problem with democracy, which will end up most likely becoming like Iran. A dictator like in Syria would have better served the US’s interests. That why Assad is still there, and why Bush has made no real attempt to bring any more democracy to the Middle East. War is good for business (Ferengi Rule of Acquisition).
Conservative strategy with communism was to contain and starve it (detente) until it fell apart, not to make peace.