If principles matter, so does McCain

It's not about John McCain. Nor is it not about Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham or James Dobson, although their views harmonize more closely with my own and those of most conservatives than do McCain's. This election isn't about party or personalities, but about principles that will guide our country for the next four years or more.

Will our nation trend in a direction that is generally conservative or one that reverses modest gains of the past 28 years and lurches toward cradle-to-grave paternalism?

That's why, despite several disagreements, John McCain gets my support against whomever the Democrats nominate. It's also why principled conservatives should check their McCain disdain at the ballot box.

Recently, some conservatives behave as if they have nothing to lose if McCain loses. But a McCain loss equals a Barack Obama win, and we have plenty lose from that.

Conservatives remain unified on three key policy objectives: pro-growth tax policy and no-nonsense budgeting, judges who respect the constitution, and a resolve to defeat Islamic terrorists.

On these key issues the choice between McCain and Obama cannot be dismissed as the lesser of two evils. The choice is clear and the stakes are enormous.

McCain is one of just five senators who flatly reject pork-barrel budget earmarks. He has vowed to veto any spending bill containing earmarks and has already incurred the wrath of several pork-loving Republicans. That's a welcome change from the you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours spending of the last eight years.

By contrast, Obama has promised programs calculated to grow the already bloated budget by $900 billion.

Despite his vote against the Bush tax cuts, McCain has vowed to fight to preserve them. Obama conveniently forgets that middle class families benefited most from the Bush tax cuts and instead demagogues against "tax cuts for the rich." However, he can't pay for his big government utopia without squeezing the working class hard.

As a Vietnam veteran, McCain understands the lasting consequences of an ignominious defeat. America's stature was badly damaged for years after Vietnam. We now see that McCain's prescription for Iraq after Saddam was right, and the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy was wrong.

Had Obama's policy of surrender and retreat carried the day, the now-vindicated surge would be merely another paper gathering dust on a shelf, Iraq would remained mired in bloody sectarian attacks, and Iran would be emboldened to direct its terrorist accomplices toward Afghanistan.

Perhaps the most critical, principled reason to support McCain is the Supreme Court. Judging by their appointments' adherence to the text of the constitution, Republican presidents have had mixed success in rolling back judicial activism.

However, two things are indisputable: the constructionist justices on today's court were all appointed by Republicans, and the Democrat appointments are all undeniably liberal activists.

John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two justices most likely to retire soon, are both activists who re-write the constitution in contravention of the plain text. Replacing either or both with another John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — each of whom McCain supported — could at last restore the court's historic role as a defender of broad individual liberty and a restraint against over-reaching government. If Obama makes the next appointment, we can be certain he will fortify the court's activist wing. Should a constructionist justice retire or die, Obama could swiftly reverse the gains of the last 28 years.

Finally, the candidates' views on the sanctity of human life provide another stark contrast that conservatives dare not forget. McCain has consistently voted to restrict abortion, parting with pro-lifers only on stem cell research. Obama not only supports abortion on demand but callously voted to deny medical care to infants born during unsuccessful abortions. Some conservatives argue that a Democrat victory would galvanize Republicans for 2010 and produce a public backlash, a la 1994. That's a tremendous gamble.

Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955 to 1995. In the Senate, Democrats ruled for 34 of those years. Here in Colorado, perhaps more than anywhere else, Republicans should realize how quickly political fortunes can change and how hard it is to reverse that tide.

Conservatives generally recognize short-sighted self-indulgence when practiced by others. Now many conservatives are in danger of practicing a suicidal self-indulgence of their own.

We must put aside self-pity and frustration and do what we always have done: choose the right and responsible course for our country.

If instead we purposefully withhold our votes to gratify our personal pride and prejudice, the surrendered freedoms, suffocating tax burdens, and national insecurity that result will be as much our responsibility as that of those we "helped" to elect.

Bill Buckley personally remembered

"He was our prophet. Without him there would have been no conservative movement, no nomination of Goldwater in 1964, no election of Reagan in 1980, no winning of a Republican Congress in 1994." So wrote James Humes to the sister of the late William F. Buckley Jr. in a personal note of condolence that he shared with listeners on Backbone Radio, March 2. Humes is the author of books on Reagan, Churchill, Lincoln, and Shakespeare, as well as a speechwriter for five presidents.

The Buckley tribute also included personal reminiscences of him by Charles Kesler of the Claremont Institute and by hosts John Andrews and Matt Dunn. Here is the full text of James Humes's handwritten letter:

Dear Trish,

Bill was the leading star in the glittering galaxy of your family. But in the rest of the Conservative world he was our prophet.

Without him there would have been no Conservative "movement," no nomination of Goldwater in 1964, no election of Reagan in 1980, no winning of a Republican Congress in 1994.

He was the Founding Father - the combination of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in our political philosophy - not to mention Edmund Burke.

His resplendent vocabulary manifested the brilliance of his mind and his rendering on the harpsichord radiated a baroque elegance to an all too arid and godless society.

Like the trans-oceanic yachtsman he was, he charted like a Columbus, new horizons for Conservatives to sail. In the world of intellect and politics he did, in Shakespeare's words, "bestride our narrow world like a colossus."

James Humes March 1, 2008

Undemocratic impact of Centennial charter

Centennial's elected treasurer warns that elimination of her position under the proposed city charter would result in less protection for taxpayers. It makes sense. Without the check and balance of other citywide officers chosen by the people, good-faith efforts by the mayor and council won't always be enough to avoid mistakes or deter abuses of power. Treasurer Susan Bockenfeld cites a recent property acquisition where her analysis caught errors of over a quarter-million dollars per year forever (!) on a pending $4 million transaction. Her letter about the incident, along with her report to the council (which they treated as unwelcome, proving the whole point) are linked below as PDF files.

Letter from Treasurer Bockenfeld

Treasurer’s Report to Council

She recommends that Centennial home rule charter should be rejected by voters if its final draft deprives citizens of an elected treasurer/auditor performing the fiscal watchdog function for all of us.

Backbone America agrees with this concern, which we feel applies equally to the charter provision eliminating an elected city clerk. The home rule plan should either be fixed or nixed.

One too many kicks at Bruce?

So an elected member of the Colorado House can lose a committee assignment for declining to co-sponsor a resolution his leadership and fellow party members happen to like? This sounds more like Marxist re-education than open government, American style. Yet it's exactly what befell Rep. Douglas Bruce (R-Colorado Springs) last week after voting for, but then not also sponsoring, a non-binding resolution of thanks to our armed forces and veterans. While I disagree with Bruce's action, and have seen little evidence in his first month as a legislator to bear out my previous hopes for him as a beneficial truth-teller under the golden dome, I'm concerned the tit-for-tat feud between him and House Minority Leader Mike May is becoming a net minus for GOP goals and the General Assembly's good name.

After the demotion last Thursday, Republicans in both the House and Senate commented to me they worry that May has let this become way too personal. And it could backfire politically.

Left to stew in his own juices, Rep. Bruce could very well alienate hometown voters to the point where he loses the August primary and passes from the legislative scene after a single, stormy session. But the more he is able to portray himself as a martyr persecuted by the party establishment and press, the better his chances of surviving this election cycle and returning to bedevil the body for another two years. That's the risk implicit in the minority leader's draconian punishment for Bruce's resolution peccadillo.

"Keep your eye on the main chance and don't stop to kick every barking dog," advises conservative wiseman Morton Blackwell in his classic, 45-point outline, "Laws of the Public Policy Process." I kept that parchment on my office wall when I was a Senate leader, and a current senator reminded me of it apropos the May-Bruce dustup. While the reference to kicking is purely coincidental, it may be good advice for Mr. TABOR's colleagues right now. If attention is oxygen to him, why furnish more of it?

The audacity of conservatism

The intra-party brouhaha over the imminent nomination of Sen. John McCain as the GOP candidate for president is, as modern elections are regularly becoming, a spiteful referendum on political conservatism. That our nation has lost its cultural, its political, and, most deeply, its spiritual way has long since been beyond doubt. The only question is increasingly – and this election cycle demonstrates it in spades – how a principled conservative ought to respond when the standard for political leadership has dropped so embarrassingly low that he senses an undeniable tug of the conscience toward abstaining from an election altogether. Outside the broad mushy middle of the political world – that portion of the “mainstream” spectrum where one resides when one knows not what one believes or why – everyone agrees there is a point where such recusal is the only conscientious choice. In an election, say, between Ronald Reagan and Antonin Scalia, does anyone seriously believe Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, or many of the self-righteous pundits in the media now scoffing at lifelong conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson for his decision not to vote if Mr. McCain is the GOP nominee, would be found darkening a presidential oval?

By the same token, many Republicans, including many conservatives, calling for other conservatives to get on board the inevitable McCain bandwagon – “What, are we just going to let a liberal Democrat win?” – know there is a point where they, too, would choose intelligent, convicted abstention over casting a vote for someone they know is unworthy of the presidential office. Picture an election between, say, Hillary Clinton and Richard Nixon – Nixon being well to the political right of John McCain – or between, say, Bill Clinton and Sen. Larry Craig, who is also well to the political right of Sen. McCain. Just get on board the GOP bandwagon? What, are we just going to let a Democrat win?

This is how third parties get started.

Recusal is not only the intelligent choice but the only wise choice in many life circumstances. Judges regularly and admirably recuse themselves when their personal connections, interests, or history make, or even give the appearance of making, a disinterested judgment improbable. An attorney will decline a case in which he has no expertise, as will a business manager who knows a particular decision is outside the realm of his knowledge or experience. Members of school boards, city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress regularly abstain from votes for a multitude of reasons, not infrequently because they simply wish to broadcast their protest against an array of options so pathetically weak that only the lowest form of pragmatism, political expediency, and peer pressure could persuade one to participate by casting a vote one simply does not believe in.

A vote is more than just a protest against the party or issue opposed. It is, at the same time, an affirmation of the party or issue supported. This is the nature of a vote. A vote says something about us as people. Twelve years from now, when we are gathered at the house with friends during the momentous election year of 2020, the question of who we voted for “back in that year, you know, when Hillary and Barack were running, when was it?” is one we can expect to come up, and our answer one on which we can expect, however light-heartedly and good-naturedly, to be evaluated. Many conservatives are deciding that “I held my nose and voted for McCain” is an answer they will be able to live with. I may yet take that route myself. For the moment, “For the first time since I came of voting age, I voted down-ballot but sat the presidential race out” is sounding like an answer I’d be comfortable with.

Even if I ultimately take a different route from Dr. Dobson, his stand is refreshing. He and the conservative talk radio universe that has opposed McCain consistently since the beginning of the race are right, and other conservative leaders, particularly among the intelligentsia, who are now falling over themselves to curry favor and secure access with McCain, are foolish. Even if one votes for McCain, one need not commit one’s public influence, or that of the organization with which one is associated, to supporting a candidate so far from what we admire, revere, hold dear, and still hope for in a great political and world leader. Now is the time for conservative leaders to be trumpeting what conservatism is and calling the GOP back to it, not myopically looking for ways to defend Mr. McCain and secure access to his potential administration.

Opposing Democrats is easy. We show how dearly we hold our conservative principles by how willing we are to hold Republicans to the same standard.

Three obvious truths, two of them timeless, need to be stated clearly once again. First, the temporary one: Mr. McCain is not a conservative. He is a liberal Republican. He is not the most liberal Republican. There are currently 48 Republican members of the U.S. Senate. Perhaps the most liberal is Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. Perhaps the most conservative is Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Those who know his record know that Mr. McCain is 7 or 8 senators to the right of Snowe, and 40 or so senators to the left of Coburn. The list of issues and occasions on which he has sold out the conservative movement runs into the dozens.

The laughable claim by President Bush that McCain is “a solid conservative,” or by Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention that McCain “has moved to a more conservative position on taxes, he has expressed appreciation for the pro-life position, and has proclaimed regularly, ‘I am pro-life,’” reflect the pragmatic low standards and neglect of real history that are rampant among the political and chattering classes today and which have brought the Party of Reagan to its knees over the last two decades. Dr. Land’s dismissal of Rush Limbaugh as someone who “needs to get out and talk to average folk more” is a manifestation of the precisely backward way in which short-sighted leaders – including those in the church – justify their expedient choices, alliances, and maneuverings rather than take an unpopular stand for the truth. Dr. Land, I can say it respectfully as someone who admires your body of work and who is a student at your convention’s flagship seminary: you have a D.Phil from Oxford and have been in high church and Republican circles for decades. Limbaugh doesn’t even have a college degree, talks to “average folk” by the dozens every day on his radio show, and has for 20 years shown more backbone in standing up to compromising politicians, including Republicans, than most anyone on the national scene. Again with respect, it is you, sir, who might benefit from talking to average folk a bit more.

Second truth, first timeless one: political conservatism is not a knee-jerk reaction or simple dislike of Hillary or a set of talking points for after the golf round. It is the stuff of the American grassroots. It is the stuff of the American founding. It is the stuff of strength, of truth, of right, of principle, of courage, of honor. It is the stuff of legends. It represents now, and will always represent, a hope far more audacious than Barack Obama ever conceived or wrote about, or that John McCain may ever realize he has systematically negotiated over the course of his political career: it is the hope that authentic truth, justice, and wisdom may yet arise to lead the planet’s greatest commonwealth in our lifetime, and that a dying American culture may yet be redeemed by authentic political virtue on high.

Third, final, and, to many, most annoyingly timeless truth: political conservatism is rooted in Christianity, and Christianity is by its nature conservative. Being conservative means believing in the steadfast conservation of God-given political and social institutions against the corrupting influence of human vice, ambition, mendacity, machination, and manipulation. Christianity preserves and conserves because it tells the truth about God, man, society, state, and history. Christian leaders like Dr. James Dobson do not abstain because they are grumpy; they abstain because they feel the weight that C.S. Lewis felt when he wrote that Christianity, considered only from an ethical standpoint, is hot enough to boil all the other systems of the world to rags. Christianity is fierce because evil and folly are fierce. Christianity’s standards are high because the standards of evil and folly are so despicably low. And all the greatest Christian saints in history have been equally fierce in their defense of truth not because they were grumpy, but because they knew that, in the course of human events, today’s pragmatic sellout is tomorrow’s political, cultural, and historical calamity.

One of the greatest truths Christianity teaches is that human politics, even at their best, are a pathetic imitation of the Real Thing. As the American Founders knew and wrote as eloquently as any group of political men in history, and as American conservatives still sense deeply today, the Real Thing is yet to happen. When the clouds are rent and the trumpet sounds, and the Son of Man descends for the second time to gather His elect from the four winds, there will be no more compromised political candidates or pathetic attempts to hide a history of negotiated principles. Rather, the entire world – some joyfully and some in terror – will join in recognizing for the first and final occasion that, in the fullness of time, government as we always dreamed and feared it could be – a deeply and abidingly and permanently conservative government – has finally come of age.