David Frum has posted a response to the reviews of his latest book by
Ramesh Ponnuru (in National Review's print edition) and
yours
truly. I have just a few extra thoughts.
Frum argues that if he "urged a big federal abstinence-promotion
program to deal with" teen pregnancy rather than a public campaign
against obesity his "conservative credentials would go
unquestioned." The programs might not have been "big," but the Bush
administration has used federal dollars to promote abstinence and
marriage. Empirically, it is not clear that these programs have
worked. Understanding as we do the limits of government,
conservatives ought to be automatically skeptical of such an
approach. Frum would have to offer more evidence than he does that
a Washington war on obesity would actually work. Identifying a
problem is not a sufficient justification for a government
solution.
On abortion, Frum argues the pro-life position could become a
political liability if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Of
course, a Republican would have to win in 2008 for there to be any
chance of that happening in the near future. And there is no
guarantee that the next Republican president will be able to win
confirmation of a justice who will overturn Roe -- or, for
that matter, that President Bush's justices would vote to reverse
rather than nibble away at the decision.
That said, if Roe falls a lot will depend on the
pro-life movement's response. If they react by trying to pass South
Dakota-style no-exceptions bans in all 50 states, Frum is probably
right. If they stick to their current incremental strategy, there
is more politically feasible progress that could be made toward
pro-life goals. Pro-lifers haven't yet gotten everything they can
get, and they showed that they can adapt to changing political
circumstances back in the 1990s. Steve Forbes is best known for his
flat tax but he had some good advice for pro-lifers: "Where there
is consensus, codify. Where there is no consensus, persuade."
Overall, I think Frum has started a valuable discussion that
most major Republicans don't seem to want to have. But I worry that
slighting Reaganism will lead either to conservative failure or a
worse conservatism. Ronald Reagan succeded by applying conservative
principles to the electorate's real problems. The next successful
conservatism will find free-market solutions to health care and
rising energy costs, traditionalist answers to the challenges of
family breakdown and assimilation, a response to terrorism rooted
in a strong national defense. Those ideological principles aren't
adequate by themselves, but we shouldn't start a rethinking by
conceding that conservatism doesn't have much to offer the American
people. If we believe that, we should consider becoming
liberals.
Problems and specific solutions change, but our principles don't
have to.
topics:
Health Care, Abortion, Conservatism, Energy
