Edwards: Conservatism Has Been Hijacked
Steve Byas
Reclaiming Conservatism
How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost
and How It Can Find Its Way Back
by Mickey Edwards,
Oxford Press, 197 pages, indexed, $21.95
I first met Mickey Edwards in early 1976. He was making his second bid for Congress, having narrowly lost to an incumbent Democrat, John Jarman, two years earlier in what had been a horrific Republican year. I was the President of a conservative student group on the campus of the University of Central Oklahoma (then called Central State), and invited Edwards to speak on the topic of conservatism in the Liberal Arts Building auditorium. He was well-received, and I signed on to work for his election. He narrowly defeated Rockefeller Republican G.T. Blankenship in the primary, and then edged out Democrat Tom Dunlap in the general election.
What Edwards said then, and what he is now saying in his new book, Reclaiming Conservatism, hasn't changed much. His philosophy of limited government, free enterprise, and liberty is the philosophy of the Founding Fathers as expressed in our Constitution, and he contends it was the philosophy of conservatism until recent years when various groups including the Neoconservatives hijacked the word, recasting it in a way to suit the Bush Administration, and sacrificing such principles on the altar of electoral victory to such an extent that the conservatism of Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan has been undeniably altered.
His overarching thesis is correct, although I would differ in some of its applications. Edwards appears to argue that by bringing in the religious right, the George Wallaceites, and others, conservatism grew in electoral might, but watered itself down to the point that its core beliefs have been gutted.
The recent death of William F. Buckley, Jr, has led to remembrance of how Buckley sought to advance conservative principles by reading certain groups and individuals out of the conservative movement, such as Robert Welch and the Birchers, and the supporters of the hyper-individualistic philosophy of Ayn Rand. Edwards almost seems to go farther than Buckley, questioning Buckley's dedication to protection of citizen rights, by stating that Buckley's more about "the centrality of capitalism and the church."
This leads one to recall the purists' statement of, "There's no one left but thee and me, and I am not too sure of thee."
Anti-communism is the glue that held the conservative movement together through the Reagan years, and it was a battle that had to be fought, Edwards contends. But, in the battle to defeat communism, conservatives allowed many liberal Democrats into the conservative tent‹the Kristols and other Neoconservatives‹bringing their Big Government ideologies with them. They have cheered as President Bush chose to make the United States the world's policeman, announcing that other nations will become "democracies," whether they want to or not. As Edwards so accurately states, what the rest of the world is not "democracy," so much as a dedication to the concepts of liberty, the rule of law, and limited government that we have enjoyed in America.
The wall of separation in the First Amendment, Edwards writes, "protects minorities against a religious majority but it protects religious practice as well." Edwards contends that the Constitution set up a series of walls, not just the so-called "wall of separation between church and state," but the wall of separation between the three branches of government. It is Congress' job to make laws, not the president's job. Only Congress can declare war, but many today who brazenly call themselves conservatives contend that the president does not need any declaration of war from Congress to take military action, including a full-scale invasion of another country in another part of the world that has not attacked us.
Another wall exists between the federal government and the states. "In fact, central to conservative political thought is the belief that much of what properly belongs in the government sphere is more appropriately handled not by Washington but by local and state officials," Edwards writes.
Concerning the current debate about "earmarks," Edwards contends that the problem is not so much earmarks Congress is supposed to make spending decisions, according to the Constitution but rather that the earmarks have often been done in such a secret fashion. He calls for openness, so the constituents of the member of Congress can make a decision on whether to retain that member.
The use of the power of government to give one group of business leaders a competitive advantage over their competition by supposed conservatives is another target of Edwards's book, and unfortunately, we have seen such actions here in Oklahoma. Just because a politician claims to be "pro-business," does not mean that the politician believes in free enterprise.
Edwards is particularly incensed by the audacity of President Bush's "involvement in installing Tennessee Senator Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader. As it happens," Edwards said, "Frist was a colossal flop in the position." But, even had Frist been hugely successful, Edwards believes it was "an egregious betrayal of the system of division between the branches of government and a major step toward consolidation, not constraint, of federal power."
He takes President Bush to task for his "signing statements," official written comments on pieces of signed legislation. Bush has, more than any other president, used the statements to declare that, while he is signing the legislation, he is selecting areas in the law where he will not consider himself bound! We also recall how Bush signed the brazen attack upon political speech known as "McCain-Feingold," with comments that he considered parts of it unconstitutional. The point is that Bush took the same oath to uphold the Constitution taken by federal judges.
Edwards demonstrates a strong bias in favor of Congress over the powers of the presidency, which appears to go against the recent tide of public opinion, including Republicans and even many conservatives. This is understandable in many ways, considering Republicans have tended to control the White House, but not the Capitol building. Since Eisenhower captured the presidency in 1952, Republicans have occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for 36 years, compared to only 20 years for the Democrats. Congress, on the other hand, has been in the hands of the Democrats for the majority of the past 50 years.
But Edwards is correct. The power to make law is the constitutional area of the Congress, not the president. Separation of powers is an important bulwark designed by the Founders, and conservatives should support Congress when they are correct, even if they happen to be Democrats and liberals.
Of course, Edwards argues that many of the folks that pass for conservatives today are really just liberals renamed for our times. A "Big Government Conservative" is like saying dry rain, and that is the point that Mickey Edwards makes.
Edwards visited OU recently, and delivered an excellent and scholarly lecture on these issues, in a very nonpartisan manner, as part of the Josh Lee lecture series. He even felt obliged to explain that, while he appeared to be attacking Bush, he was really challenging the trend toward a stronger and unconstitutional presidency through both Democrat and Republican administrations, and that Bush just happens to be continuing this trend. Former Senator Cal Hobson, now on staff at OU, was in attendance, and alone among the questioners, who kept their remarks to the topic at hand in the scholarly atmosphere of the event, Hobson chose to deliver some partisan shots against Republicans. Edwards handled the classless remarks of Hobson in a classy way.
Edwards signed copies of his book at a book signing at my book store in Moore, as he had in Tulsa, and we were able to catch up on some old times from the 70s, and discuss some of these issue in more detail. He has a sharp mind, and a dedication to the concept of liberty lacking in so many Republican office holders of today. I found some statements in the book which with I could not agree, but on the whole, this is a book that should find a place on every conservative's bookshelf.
Back to Front Page
|  |
|
 
Do you like what you see here? Much more is available in every issue of the publication no true Conservative can do without. Order now for only $10.00.
|
|
