Constitutional conservatism: a friendly critique

In case you missed it, there is a thoughtful opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Stanford's Peter Berkowitz. The title grabbed me right away: "Conservatives Can Unite Around the Constitution".

Now, let me warn you up front, I am not here to kick the Republican party when they're down. The First Sea Lord can do that (I suspect the Viceroy will pipe him along), but a whopping one-party victory is, for me, a bad outcome. It breeds arrogance and a sense of entitlement. Our nation does best, I believe, when different schools of thought contend, and legitimate points of view from both sides of the aisle receive a fair hearing.

We will not reach that ideal because one side of the aisle screwed up unbelievably. Losing the election is a well-deserved punishment for a party that mismanaged the country, led us into imprudent foreign entanglements, betrayed its espoused ideal of small and efficient government, failed miserably in responding to predictable crises, and flouted the Constitution seemingly at every opportunity. So fuck 'em.

By the way, the last of those sins is surely the least forgivable, and so the idea of uniting conservatives around a fresh commitment to the Constitution makes a lot of sense. Americans pride themselves on their open-mindedness, and I certainly like to have a second option on the ballot when I'm pissed at a Democrat (or the Democrats in general). But I'm not so goddam stupid that I'll vote for a political organization that doesn't respect the basic legal foundations of this country. All this fancy talk about there being no right to privacy, or this new doctrine of unitary executive whatever - I have two words in response: bull and shit. Here's a hint: if the founding fathers wanted an intrusive executive dictatorship, they wouldn't have fought a fucking war of independence based on the principle of individual liberty.

So yeah, let's start by rallying around the Constitution. The real one, not the weird copy down at the Federalist Society gift shop. Works for me.

Here are Berkowitz's specific ideas for a conservative renewal:

• "An economic program, health-care reform, energy policy and protection for the environment grounded in market-based solutions." Didn't we just try that? Ok, take your best shot, but you've got to convince a lot of registered voters that it won't be Kleptonomics, Part Deux.
• "A foreign policy that recognizes America's vital national security interest in advancing liberty abroad but realistically calibrates undertakings to the nation's limited knowledge and restricted resources." Hear hear, couldn't say it better myself.
• "A commitment to homeland security that is as passionate about security as it is about law, and which is prepared to responsibly fashion the inevitable, painful trade-offs." Yeah, you see, that's why I'm never going to vote for a Republican again. If you think there's a big grey area around obeying laws, I am not ticking the box by your name. EVER. Most secure country ever: Stalin's Russia. Republicans used to think America shouldn't be run that way.
  
• "A focus on reducing the number of abortions and increasing the number of adoptions." OK, this could work. No one likes abortions, and constructive solutions would be welcome to most mainstream Americans. I look forward to the Republicans giving up their most lucrative fundraising tool by finding a useful compromise on this painful and divisive issue.
• "Efforts to keep the question of same-sex marriage out of the federal courts and subject to consideration by each state's democratic process." I could live with that. I think people of good will can disagree on this issue. It means all the smart gay people will move to gay-friendly states and help them become rich, but...oh that already happened. You're good!
• "Measures to combat illegal immigration that are emphatically pro-border security and pro-immigrant." I'm on board. Current immigration policy is a travesty. The concept of citizenship needs to mean something. And if you're not looking forward to 9/11 Reloaded you should care about this.
• "A case for school choice as an option that enhances individual freedom while giving low-income, inner-city parents opportunities to place their children in classrooms where they can obtain a decent education." Totally agree. The Democrats are vulnerable here. They talk the talk, but Californiacrat schools are a disgrace. Furthermore, most Americans believe in equal opportunity, and most aren't getting it.
• "A demand that public universities abolish speech codes and vigorously protect liberty of thought and discussion on campus." Sorry, I don't think the problem of the past eight years was that conservative academics were not influential enough. That's just not how I diagnose it.
• "The appointment of judges who understand that their function is to interpret the Constitution and not make policy, and, therefore, where the Constitution is most vague, recognize the strongest obligation to defer to the results of the democratic process." Weird. I disagree with the premise (how do you "interpret" without "making policy"?), but agree with the conclusion. The judiciary should not be in the business of subverting the will of the elected representatives of the people.
  

I have one other big problem with this piece. It repeats (probably through the indiscretion of a WSJ editor) the lamentable mistake of trying to "make Reagan happen again."

Guys, listen to me: Reagan was a bad model. Since Reagan you've picked these execu-tards who "connect" and "have vision" and all that bullshit. You know what's really scary about Palin? She's smarter than Quayle. You cannot keep running fools up there. You're supposed to be the party of grown-ups.

Everything you learned from Reagan is WRONG:

• Substance matters.
• Deficits matter.
• Reality matters.
  
• Vision is not enough.
• Unilaterism is stupid.

If you want to be a credible force again, you should go back and look at the real deal, a guy who earned the enduring love of millions of Americans. A man of substance, and integrity. An accomplished executive motivated by a deep and profound love of his country. A man who governed from the center, respected the Constitution, and had no time for rigid ideologues. After all, he'd just won a war against them.

Forget Reagan, you need to find another Ike.