Will Bush,.GOP Pass the Frank Test?
By Michael Brendan Dougherty Posted in User Blogs — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Cross-posted at my blog
The most provocative political book of recent memory was Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. The
book's thesis goes something like this: Republicans sell themselves as
the party of values, of social conservatism; this is how they win
elections. Once in office, they drop social conservatism and focus on
rewarding crony capitalist friends and enacting a reckless free-market
ideology. Liberal political commentators turned to Frank for
consolation and enlightenment in the aftermath of Kerry's defeat in
2004. Conservatives, Ross Douthat and W. James Antle have wondered
aloud whether there was something to this analysis as they've perceived
enervation in the Bush administration.
With Sandra Day
O'Connor's departure from the Supreme Court (with more retirements
seeming inevitable), Bush has a chance to change the balance of the
Court on cultural issues, putting Frank's thesis to a critical test.
Read On Below the FoldUntil now social conservatives have born every slight and snub by GOP
leadership with the hope that they would be able to exert enough
pressure to capture vital Supreme Court seats. If Republicans fail to
change the Court, or even drag their feet - Thomas Frank may be proved
right and the biggest voting bloc of Republicans may sink into
political despondency by 2006.
Thomas Frank is correct to note
that conservative culture warriors have been using language reminiscent
of old time economic populists. In the days of William Jennings Bryan
the "elites" were the East Coast bankers, crony capitalists, and other
Gilded Age goons. The enemies in the modern culture war are still East
Coast "elites" but now they reside in the media, in the government, and
the universities. Rather than constituting a plundering plutocracy
these elites are a Culture-cartel. They thumb their noses at the values
of working class church going patriots in Middle America. Laura
Ingraham's book Shut Up And Sing is a perfect example of the
anti-elite meme that circulates among cultural conservatives. Looking
at the language and populist posture of the socially conservative
activists, Frank concludes that the Culture War is old fashioned class
warfare by another name.
It is understandably disconcerting
for a liberal to see Wall Street wizards and market prophets like Larry
Kudlow, Stephen Moore or Neil Cavuto casting their lot with put-upon
working men and women - claiming to champion the "little guy" against
an "elite". It is a perverse reversal of all the supposed lessons of
the Progressive Era. The division between the Wall Street and Main
Street crowd was not lost on Frank either. In a chapter of What's the Matter with Kansas, Frank outlines the differences between moderate Republicans (Mods) and conservatives (Cons) - where Mods are "corporate types"
"And
as corporate types, these Mods are the primary beneficiaries of the
class war that rages against them. Although the Cons vituperate against
the high and the mighty, the policies they help to enact -
deregulating, privatizing- only serve to make the Mods high and
mightier still. And while it may hurt the Mods' feelings to overhear
their secretaries referring to them as RINOs, the many rounds of tax
cuts the Cons have accomplished surely made the sting subside. The Mods
win even when they lose."
Putting aside arguments about
whether a free market ideology, or economic populism is in the economic
interest of heartland conservatives, it is undeniable that Bush has
been a strong advocate of free market ideology. He has enacted broad
tax cuts, agitated for Social Security privatization, CAFTA is hurrying
through the legislative halls, and he quickly abandoned his timid steel
tariffs - amid a cascade of criticism from free-trade advocates. His
immigration policy (or lack thereof) ensures a steady flow of cheap
labor to clean up the offices and arrange the landscapes of the elite.
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal couldn't be happier.
On
social issues, however, Bush has been less responsive to his base. The
morally dubious compromise on stem-cells sat uneasily with conservative
activists. Bush and Senator Santorum helped to save Arlen Specter from
defeat at the hands of a strongly pro-life Pat Toomey. Specter now
controls the Senate Judiciary Committee. Though many credited Bush's
2004 re-election to anti-gay marriage initiatives he has spent his
"political capital" on a doomed Social Security reform rather than a
doomed Federal Marriage Amendment. While the heartland rides a bus to
Washington every January for the annual March for Life, Air Force One
flies over them to the heartland so Bush can campaign for
privatization, phoning in a "Hello" to the brigades of pro-lifers that
elected him.
In the heartland, in Ohio, and Florida activists
went door to door for Bush to stem the tide of social revolution, their
eyes squarely on the aged Supreme Court. They do not march for Free
Trade with El Salvador and Honduras, their sons and daughters don't
defy school principals with t-shirts saying "I will not accept capital
gains taxes which God forbids", or ride with bumper stickers pleading
"Pray and Fast for privatization." They do not look at rappers and
other media elites, lower their angry brows and declaim "These people
pay too much in income taxes!" Yet, the Republicans in the legislative
and executive branches prioritize GOP politics as if their base did all
this and more.
With a bad nomination to the Supreme Court, Bush
will prove Frank's thesis correct. More substantially, he may disabuse
social conservatives of their steadfast support. If social
conservatives see their work rewarded with nothing, their political
energy will spread in contradictory, self-defeating directions. Some
will wage a bloody war against the modern day Rockefellers to complete
the purge the Goldwater movement never finished. Others will abandon
the GOP for various "uncompromised" (i.e. unelectable) third parties.
Others still will abandon politics entirely to focus on "changing
hearts" rather than the laws.
In 2004, with his finger pointing
at Scalia and Thomas as his judicial beau ideals, Bush put his Texas
hat over his compassionate conservative heart. But now we approach the
moment of truth. Is the GOP the party of the heartland too, or merely
the handmaiden of global business? Is Bush a fearless down home Texas
conservative, or is he an elite Connecticut blue-blood poseur? Is
Thomas Frank just a lefty populist crank? I'm worried he's a prophet.
The
GOP needs to be a big tent, but when a sizeable portion of any
congregation feels the leadership lacks fervor for the cause - they
call down fire from heaven - and down the street they pray for revival
in another tent.
Given the premium Bush puts on loyalty and the great respect he seems to have for his advisers, it wouldn't surprise me if he thought Gonzalez was the best man for the job, and a man who would side with the administration where possible, out of loyalty. Of course Supreme Court justices generally don't do that at all, and if he was inclined to do so, then he'd also have a responsibility to recuse himself. I guess it just depends on Gonzalez's character, which surely Bush should know better than I would.
Oddly enough, neither side is really a fan of Gonzalez, whether for his previous decisions in Texas, or due to the Texas clemency memos, or the torture memos--but Bush's loyalty often seems to know no bounds. However, I don't think he'd risk nominating anyone who might very well not get confirmed--hence the current conferences with 'at least 60' members of the Senate.
in secret, like if Dean could take over Bush's body for a month. He would cause Bush to nominate someone who would take O'Conner's stand on issues like abortion, sodomy, the death penalty, and affirmative action. And take Kennedy's stand on property rights and mandatory sentencing guidelines. In other words, a David Souter clone.
This would drive social conservatives over the edge. They would run from the party like many moderates did in 1992. They would stay at home on election day or vote for charismatic independents like Ross Perot.
Fortunately, Bush knows this. He also knows that the best political move is also the right thing to do: he should nominate someone who reads the Constitution as it is written, and not as s/he would like it to be written. That is why I am totally confident that Bush will nominate someone who views the Constitution as Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas do.
Bush has often done the wrong thing- exluding my obvious disagreement with him and the mainstream of the party on the issue of War - he spent his political capital on Social Security Reform (which is not going anywhere)- he passed the Prescription Drug Bill - handing young people like me a bill we can't even begin to pay in the future.
Honestly- I don't see any serious social conservatism in the Bush administration at all. My bet is that its just talk. And my prediction is that Bush will nominate a great jurist he is certain will not be confirmed and replace O'Conner with an O'Conner clone - someone who will generally favor business, and the free market, but who will help ratify the social revolution.
for the social conservatives who knocked on doors, made hundreds of thousands of phone calls, and wrote large and small checks for his re-election.
There isn't a whole lot that the president can do for social conservatives without help from both sides of the aisle in Congress and/or some help from the Supreme Court which he has no control over.
The only thing that a president CAN do is stuff like defunding groups like Planned Parenthood. Which, if I remember correctly, was Bush's first executive order as president.
The rest of the what Bush has "done" for social conservatives is either largely or wholly symbolic. Like the proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Rove probably told him before he decided to support it that it was a symbolic gesture to let social conservatives know that he will still make a symbolic gesture for traditional family values. Kerry said that he was against the amendment, therefore, he would not even make this symbolic gesture for traditional values.
If Bush nominates a moderate like Gonzalez (or even McConnell, if my suspicions about him are right), then he truly is a deceiver. He said that he would nominate strict constructionists like Scalia and Thomas. I say let's see it.
I really agree with:
Bush isn't picking Gonzalez because he is the best man for the job, but because he is a friend of Bush's.
I'd like to expand that sentence:
Bush isn't picking ___ because he is the best man for the job, but because he is a friend of Bush's.
That's how the majority of bush's appointments have been made, imo. Loyalty is everything to bush.
A SC justice appointment should be no different.
on this one, the social conservatives will stay home, and while it may not translate into defeat in '06, will likely to do so by '08.
Bush can probably shaft the social conservatives in some areas, but when it comes to the courts, he probably isn't going to be able to get away with it.
I think one problem with Gonzalez other than he is a moderate, is that is smacks of cronyism. Bush isn't picking Gonzalez because he is the best man for the job, but because he is a friend of Bush's. That isn't going to play well in the heartland.