Many Republican House members, and the bloggers and tea partiers who cheered their victory in gaining a majority in November 2010, seem to be seething with discontent and eager for confrontation.
They believe, reasonably, that their victory represented a repudiation of the vast expansion of government by the Obama Democrats. They want to see those policies reversed, and pronto. And if the dilatory Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the all-campaign-no-governance President Obama want a confrontation, so much the better.
Such impatience is unbecoming in those who call themselves “constitutional conservatives.” It is James Madison’s Constitution that prevents the winners of one election from directing the course of public policy as unilaterally as, to take one example, the British Labor party marched Britain into a socialist welfare state on the basis of one election victory in 1945.
Advertisement
We have a House of Representatives, 100 percent of whose members were elected in a historic Republican year, a president elected in a historic Democratic year, and a Senate, two-thirds of whose members were elected in historic Democratic years and one-third in a historic Republican year.
It should not be surprising that they cannot agree on policy. Most of the high-minded folk who decry “gridlock” would like the Republican House to say uncle. The Republicans bemoaning their leaders’ lack of boldness imagine that if they force confrontation they can somehow prevail.
Neither can succeed in the framework the Framers gave us — not until another election.
The Republicans who seek changes in policy need to exercise prudence in framing issues in order to gain a favorable verdict from voters in the election coming up this fall.
Speaker John Boehner — who started off as a rebel himself and served as a leader when Newt Gingrich moved policy (sometimes adroitly, sometimes maladroitly) in a Republican direction — is as well positioned as anyone could be to make judgments on when prudence should override principle.
But say this for the impatient Republicans: They have a worthy goal.
They want to turn back the Obama Democrats’ advance into what Alexis de Tocqueville — the author (according to Harvard’s Harvey Mansfield) of “the best book ever written on democracy and the best book ever written on America” — characterized as soft despotism.
I agree in general that true conservatives should shy away from a confrontational and angry tone, but too often we do it because we're afraid of not being liked. As a result, we morph into apologists for rather than advocates of conservative principles. There is no reason one can't be simultaneously confrontational and calmly reasoning. And there's no reason one can't be prudent but not timid, the latter being what the GOP too often is.
In addition, prudence must be coupled with firm purpose and planning. Matthew quoted Jesus as telling his disciples, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves”. The GOP has the harmless as doves part down pat. Wise as serpents? Not so much. Unfortunately, that's the Democrat wolves' forte.
Rubbish. History teaches that a new conservative House only has a term or two to accomplish any change whatsoever. After that it morphs into the time-serving, business-as-usual establishment. Witness Boehner, once a conservative firebrand but now the shepherd of such abominations as our latest transportation bill and the debt ceiling increases. The liberals and their courtesans in the MSM will vilify true conservatives whatever they do. So why not do right, while there is still a chance?
I obviously don't agree with the lines about so-called "soft despotism" as applied to the policies of the Obama administration.
But other than that, Michael Barone is absolutely right. The sort of mindless confrontation we saw all of last year will not achieve anything of significance.
First of all, it will hurt Republicans electorally. It is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that the source of dysfunction in Washington are Republican freshman. Confrontation for its own sake (or in the misguided hope that mere confrontation can bend the will of those who strongly disagree with you) will backfire and cement the image of Republicans as the do-nothing party.
But more importantly, more confrontation does not solve any problems for the American people. There must be things that can be worked on that both political parties agree with. For example, making government more efficient and providing better customer service. Increasing the availability of online education. Building better infrastructure. And so on. Much of the important work we can do to improve society is not too controversial (who doesn't want the government to provide better customer service?) and perhaps not glamorous. But it is important. Why not accomplish the positive changes we can agree on?
Ultimately, it is quite clear that the two political parties have core philosophical differences. I for one, am eager to highlight and argue about those differences. But such arguments are not going to resolved by confrontation or raw power plays, as much as Republican freshman have immature delusions to the contrary. Rather, such differences can only be resolved by having more elections. It is ultimately up to the American people to decide between those philosophies. In the meantime, if you are one of the few people elected to serve the American people in Congress, you should try to find ways to make the country better in small ways, even if you cannot accomplish all of your big goals all at once.
Michael Barone sounds like the sort of conservative who has actually read the Constitution and understands that the concepts of checks and balances applies to everyone, his own party included.
Sir, you have it exactly backward. Left unchecked, the federal government will soon head over the cliff, taking the whole nation with it. Surely President Obama must understand the danger -- it's all there in black and white, in his own budget proposal. If he were an actual leader he would explain this to the people and propose serious spending cuts and entitlement reform -- now, while there is still time to avert the catastrophe. Instead he gives us ever larger deficits and the rhetoric of class warfare. And when the Republicans in the House try to apply the brakes -- using the power of the purse, their only weapon under our system of checks and balances (that you say you know so much about) -- you claim they are "the source of the dysfunction".
Welker: "Much of the important work we can do to improve society is not too controversial (who doesn't want the government to provide better customer service?) and perhaps not glamorous. But it is important. Why not accomplish the positive changes we can agree on?"
Because the devil (no pun intended) is in the details.
When it comes to infrastructure, we conservatives do NOT agree that high-speed rail is necessary or desirable. We think it's a useless boondoggle that is inappropriate for a country like the U.S. that stretches across six time zones and an ocean. I can't take a train from Boston to Honolulu.
And "making government services more efficient" is a meaningless buzzword phrase--until you look up the definition of the word "efficient".
Efficiency is defined as the ratio of output to input. But as soon as we conservatives ask for that--cuts in Government spending and fewer bureaucrats while still maintaining adequate services--it's you liberals who say no. Liberals actually defend hiring more people into Government as a way to fight unemployment. But more employees without more services equals less efficiency.
So far, the ONLY thing Obama has done domestically that many of us conservatives could agree about is the privatization of manned access to Low Earth Orbit, rather than continuing to rely on NASA to do it.
Excellent analysis. The voters who will make the difference in the election -- those toward the middle, leaning either left or right but not rigidly ideological -- see right through the Tea Party fanatics, the far leftists, and those who, like Santorum, foolishly emphasize social and religious issues. If the Republican nominee can turn the focus strictly to economics (jobs, the deficit, how to pay for long-term programs without ending them, health care and jobs again) they might have a chance at a fair playing field. There certainly is room for vigorous debate. The social and religious issues are losers, because the majority, including most Catholics, approve of the status quo.
A well-worded and reasonable-sounding post to be sure ... but is there any politician in recent memory who is less amenable to working with those of opposing views than Barack "I Won" Obama? If the passage of Obamacare on a procedural maneuver with no Republican votes after the public had so forcefully expressed its opposition as to elect Scott Brown doesn't represent an exercise in raw power and confrontation, I don't know what does. Opportunities for bi-partisan compromise abound -- starting with tax reform and other recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission -- and the current President spurns them all.
One more thing: Tocqueville is quoted ad nauseam on NRO. But I wonder if any of these all-knowing pundits has actually sat down and read him all the way through. Judging by the quotes in Barone's piece, it must be quite a slog.
I am sadly disappointed in this article from Mr. Barone. I usually love his articles, and I am not one of the posters that flapped here with the flying monkeys from the Daily Kos. The Republican leadership is committing suicide, and the rank and file should not take a valium, and be happy with it. Acting like this is what got them the elections of 2006 and 2008. The wave of 2010 was put into place by the electorate to oppose President Obama’s agenda. Period. Does anyone need that explained? Obama, Pelosi, and Reed overreached, and the people spoke.
What will the people do if the representative they elected seem to compromise with those that have usurped their freedom? Can you see the people saying, “Yes, we can give up a little of our rights, so you can compromise?” The Republican Party has more to fear from being too accommodating than it has to fear about being too confrontational. Remember the words, “You are the salt of the earth, but if that salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out…” Jesus was speaking about religious spirit, but if you can’t take these words and apply them to everyday life, you might as well become a Democrat.
I am afraid the " immense tutelary power" may win this round at the top leadership level. (Santorum's 'Jesus' outbursts emphasizing the empty confrontational idiocy of our Republican hopefuls). My hope remains that moving forward, the quiet conservatives of our nation continue to see through the manipulation of media and the socialist leaning agenda of the left and work towards a rational resolution at the electoral level, perhaps understanding that an educational approach rather than a mad-dog style might bring the undecided, confused and worried to our camp....How true that self examination becomes painfully, necessarily important at this time...were that it is not too late...
This article is frustrating, for Michael Barone is half-right. Prudence is essential, surely; for when Churchill prematurely counter-attacked on the ground in Norway and Greece, he got his clock cleaned, but when those in charge of his air defenses carefully husbanded their reserves (especially their pilots) in the Battle of Britain, they just squeaked through, and prevented a German ground invasion of Britain.
Compare this to the GOP Establishment, who seem more about keeping control of the party than winning in November. They abandoned Sarah Palin to unfair attacks, although she was at one time their best asset (and may be again, if they let her). They mercilessly attack Ron Paul, even though he does surprisingly well in head-to-head matchups with Lord Obama in swing states, and we desperately need the support of young Libertarians. They destroy Newt, the one guy who knows how to get things done in D.C. from the inside out; then they brag about it.
Get on board, GOP Establishment. You must relinquish a lot of control to grass-roots GOP voters if you want to win. Don't merely stop attacking 'outsider' candidates, but help rescue our politically wounded, so they can get back in the fight. If we, the grass roots, must be prudent, so must you.
Passion and impatience, used wisely, along with exposure of the left's dangerous authoritarianism, is the key to victory in November. It amazes me that the 'experts' do not seem to see that.
Reps in the House need to move off the dime or they'll find themselves losing control this coming November. As despicable and disgusting as Pelosi might be, she was never associated with the idea of going to Washington to kill the government; having picked up that label this past 14 months, the gang that has Eric-the-hateful Cantor as its spokesman will leave as their swing districts go back to blue, but will leave the longer lived Reps in the House in a position that is weaker than they've ever experienced.
Government is evil. The Framers of the Constitution knew it. No question about it. In the last one hundred years, the Democrats being tired of the inhibitions to their power by the Constitution, have worked as unrelentingly as termites to undermine the foundations of it. The Democrat must be fumigated out of public life so that decent freedom-loving citizens can live their lives in peace.
If an action by the fedgov does not have a genuine, non-mumbo-jumbo, basis in the Constitution, it is unlawful.
I like how some of those leaving comments are trying to frame the battle between the despotic party and the Republicans. The battle is actually between those who want the fedgov to be severely restrained by the Constitution and those who want tyranny. The Office Holder, in conjunction with his master, the Nazi Collaborator Soros, has done more damage to Liberty in collusion with his cronies, than any other administration since Woodrow Wilson.
I'm one of those whom I know you must be referring to, Mr. Barone. I have watched the Republicans get out maneuvered these past several years, and especially this past year, and, yes, I'm angry. I'm also fearful that they don't get it. Do they get it? Do you get it? I don't see many acting like they do, and the more they seem not to get it, the angrier the base gets. So, if you're concerned about "needing prudence," if you really want that, the GOP needs to at least pretend they see what's coming down the pike. Then, perhaps the base would be comfortable enough with them to cut them some slack.
Well somebody has to disagree with the lot of you - Mr Barone brings to light Tocqueville's insight to what happens when you let government slowly but surely take control of practically everything in your existence because they know what's best for you. We cannot as a Country or as a People of this Republic show prudence when our own elected officials fail to represent the populace fully and do the job we have put our trust in them to perform. Surely there are others out there who are just as frustrated, disappointed and down right angry with what is happening before our very eyes as I am to witness the desecration of our beloved Republic. Prudence does not come to mind in times of turmoil and tyranny. I can assure you our founding fathers did not idly stand by or show prudence. Their actions were decisive and so should ours be; to put an end to this madness and reverse the course we are destined so long as the Democratic Socialist are in control of the Senate and the Executive Branch. We cannot afford to lose this time round either. The strength and soul of our Nation depends on it.
hit the reset: Exactly so, This is the reason the founders wrote the second amendment leaving the citizens armed. Government, once empowered beyond its charter, will not voluntarily reverse its descent into dictatorship and fascism. At some point citizens be called upon to renew the Constitution.
