Religious Conservatives First; Conservative Conservatives Second
A New York Times editorial criticizes the extraordinary measures taken after supporters of the religious right leaned on Congress and the White House to step in in the Schiavo case. A new law passed on Monday gives "any parent of Theresa Maria Schiavo" the standing to sue in federal court to prolong her life:
The new law tramples on the principle that the United States is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one woman's tragic story is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy....This narrow focus is offensive. The founders of the United States believed in a nation in which, as Justice Robert Jackson once wrote, we would "submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules." There is no place in such a system for a special law creating rights for only one family. The White House insists that the law will not be a precedent. But that means that the right to bring such claims in federal court is reserved for people with enough political pull to get a law passed that names them in the text.
Republicans have traditionally championed respect for the delicate balance the founders created. But in the Schiavo case, and in the battle to stop the Democratic filibusters of judicial nominations, Bush and his congressional allies have begun to enunciate a new principle: The rules of government are worth respecting only if they produce the result we want. It may be a formula for short-term political success, but it is no way to preserve and protect a great republic.
An abuse of power, plain and simple. Jeff A. Taylor at Reason Express explains that it was a much needed decoy:
First and foremost, the relative flop of George Bush's Social Security initiative put the GOP in a compassion deficit without gaining them anything in return. Republican members of Congress were already tacking away from George Bush, granny-kicker, before the Schiavo case. Now, on this issue, they get to come out swinging against "torturers" and other heartless unbelievers. This is familiar ground for them, and Bush can work it too.Then factor in deep dissatisfaction among conservatives with the continued GOP-led spending frenzy in D.C. and the need for a base-energizing issue is quite dire. With Democrats in Congress totally unified in their opposition to any cuts in entitlement spending, not just absolute cuts but mere reductions in the rate of increases as well, Republicans can afford no weakness. But with a handful of moderate Republicans still willing to define compassion in terms of spending money, that is not happening. Hence the need to find a compassion issue that is both off-budget and goes where Democrats dare not follow.
In other words, pro-life=pro-pawn. Suddenly, I find myself waxing nostalgic for the days of White House travel office scandals.
Leave a comment