First, I have to give HuffPo credit. I exchanged e-mail with Sam Stein shortly before walking out the door to lunch, and before I had finished my brisket at Capitol Q (just six blocks from my office) my e-mail started buzzing with questions/comments about this post. They work fast.

As for the content, let me expand on what I told Sam.

I have no idea what Scott did or did not experience in the White House and have no way of knowing whether his specific accusations are true or false.

My point to Sam, and the point to my Twitter comment last night, was that Scott has written a book about the nastiness of politics in general and the notion of the permanent campaign specifically, that is right on the money. The excerpts I have read of the book make a very salient and very meaningful point – this town and the culture of constant political battle, do great harm to the process of actually governing.

When you are unwilling to admit a mistake for fear of creating an opening your opposition can exploit for partisan gain, you create a cycle where bad choices become compounded upon one another. I think that is a syndrome that we saw emerge from the Clinton years and grow worse during the Bush years. There is simply no room for honest discussion anymore. There is merely partisan scorekeeping and score settling.

I also believe, as Matthew Dowd noted in the New York Times, that Bush has squandered the second term that 62 million people gave him.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

Believe it or not, there are more than a handful of people who work in politics and become involved because they fundamentally believe that we can change the world we live in. Matt referred to the idea in his NYT interview.

“I’m a big believer that in part what we’re called to do — to me, by God; other people call it karma — is to restore balance when things didn’t turn out the way they should have,” Mr. Dowd said. “Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election.”

I think McClellan’s interview on Today this morning echoed much of that same sentiment. These are people who worked tirelessly to elect a President in which they saw so much more than what was to come. McClellan says they got caught up playing the Washington game. I believe that is true, and I believe almost everyone recognizes that is true.

As I told Sam, I think McClellan’s book should be viewed through that prism. The media and the Administration may portray this as a gotcha perpetrated by Scott, but I think that discounts the larger message. It is that message that I agree with. For that reason, I fear the typical Washington response to discredit the messenger will force us to lose sight of the message.

I am a believer. I think people can change their world by getting involved. Unfortunately, this town tests my faith in that idea every day. Watching Scott being savaged for fighting for that ideal is testing it again today.

I have argued for some time now that the Republican Party was coming to a point of conflict between the factions that comprise her.

In one corner we have the libertarian wing – the get government off my back and out of my life crowd. They want nothing more than an exceedingly limited federal government with the bulk of important decisions made by the branch of government closest to them.

In the other corner, we have the religious wing of the party. They claim the title “conservative” but there is nothing restrained in their pursuit of public policy based on their theology. They say they want government out of their lives, but then they use the power of the fed in an attempt to legislate everything from government mandated a la carte television to right to die issues dragged up from lower courts simply because the original verdict offended some religious sensibility.

These two factions have been clashing of late because the former holds the latter somewhat to blame for the party’s losses in 2006. The rabid pursuit of a gay marriage amendment and the circus that was the Terri Schiavo case, the argument goes, drew negative attention to the party in a way unseen since Pat Buchanan’s bigoted speech at the 1992 convention. Not in 14 years had the religious right done so much to harm the GOP.

The religious wing fires back that it was the heathens among the GOP (Mark Foley being one) that cost us the election. They believe (despite polling to the contrary) that the country yearns for the same sort of theologically pure government not seen since the Taliban was routed in 2001.

Now the debate is playing out in the politics of the Presidential contest. This morning, Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost took aim at Fred Thompson for his support of Federalism.

Now I’m not so certain. His views of the federal marriage amendment, the Schiavo case, and his general position on federalism are troubling. For me, conservatism trumps federalism, while the position Thompson endorses seem to reverse that order…

Federalism also can disappoint those who believe that justice trumps ideological concerns. One of the most disheartening and shameful scenes of the last decade was to see so-called conservatives claim that the Terri Schiavo case should have been left solely to the state of Florida. The charitable view is to assume that had they known that a woman was being killed by the state without due process of law, they would have sided with justice over judicially mandated involuntary euthanasia. The less generous opinion is that they simply haven’t considered how federalism relates to conservative principles.

For if conservatives are willing to give the state the power to kill an innocent woman, willing to let adherence to procedure trump our dedication to justice, willing to put the rights of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, then we have lost all sense of what it means to be conservatives.

Federalism can be useful in drawing legitimate lines of Constitutional authority. But when it is allowed to transfer power to the states from other societal spheres, the philosophy merely creates 50 separate laboratories of liberalism.

A Fundamental Question

Carter makes an argument that Federalism is not a conservative position. It raises an interesting topic of debate. He gets into theoretical discussions about various interpretations of the ideologies that shape society, but suffice it to say he does not adopt a Federalist viewpoint. The basics of his argument are the government of Massachusetts could, if it wanted, assume a totalitarian position and define all aspects of society. They could enforce not only their own views of religion, definitions of marriage, etc, but they could prohibit all others.

Well, yes. Exactly. That’s essentially the theory of Federalism. If the majority of the people of Massachusetts, who elect the governing bodies of the state, felt that was acceptable, they could do just that. His argument is rather simplistic as he describes a more dictatorial regime, and seems to ignore that Federalism still begins and ends with the role of the people being governed in setting the course of their life. If you include that, he’s pretty much right on. People can, if they choose, set their own rules and live by them.

So which is the conservative position? Should Conservatives resist the encroachment of the Federal Government into the most private decisions of our lives?

To explore that, let’s return to the Schiavo case. What we see in her situation is exactly that. A state, based on the laws enacted by the duly elected representatives and the adjudication performed by its judiciary, made a decision to let a woman die. States do this routinely. States choose not to admit evidence in cases that could exonerate innocent people wrongly convicted and slowly dying in an 8×8 metal cage. We acknowledge the injustice, but there it is. The fact is the rule of law, for all its power to manage society, is an imperfect machine that is occasionally greased with the blood of the innocent.

Does that justify the federal government forcing its nose into the tent and demanding a different set of laws (laws of its choosing) be applied because the citizens of California, Washington, DC, or Illinois were bothered by the rules set forth in Florida? Does it justify the expansion of the federal government’s role to interfere with the laws of a state?

Occasionally, we see a murder case where the outcome of the trial is so horrific it appalls us as a people. Take a look at O.J. The overwhelming majority of this nation was horrified that these two lives were taken. The country watched in shock as the joke that is the California judicial system let the killer walk free.

Yet nobody demanded that the federal government intercede on behalf of “the innocent”. Nobody staged protests to demand that the rights of Nicole and Ron be heard and the murderer be dragged to Washington for justice. We understood that there was an imperfect trial, in a flawed court system, and a travesty occurred.

If you really want to see this argument on display, suggest to someone who is pro-life that a Constitutional amendment banning abortion is completely contrary to Conservative beliefs. Abortion is murder! They will claim. We need to protect life at the federal level!

But this ignores the fact that murder is tried as a local crime. It is left to the local courts to determine whether a murder was premeditated or a crime of passion. It is left to the states to decide which homicides can be justified and which cannot. It is left to the states to decide what level of punishment is applied to a crime. Why then, is abortion, or right to die not afforded the same level of local discretion?

Federalism and Marriage

Now I can jump on my other favorite “federalist” soapbox, again. If you consider yourself Conservative, the idea of a federal amendment “protecting” marriage should make your skin crawl.

The debate over marriage, as I have often been known to rant about, is not about the “definition” of marriage. It is not a question of whether marriage is one man and one woman, two men, two women, or a human being and a goat. The real debate over this issue must, and I believe eventually will, come down to what is the basis for marriage.

Is marriage a contract between two people and God? Or is a marriage a contract between two people and the state? In computer security terms, who, in this arrangement, is the certificate authority? Who ultimately sanctions the marriage?

If marriage is a contract between the united and their God, then the government has absolutely nothing to say about it. The Constitution is quite specific on that point. Churches, then, should be the ultimate arbiters of what “defines” marriage for their parishioners.

If marriage is a document legally binding two parties for the purpose of legal assets and legal protections, then the contract should be gender neutral as is every other contract drawn between consenting parties. I can sell my car to a man or a woman. Homosexuals can trade real estate under the same rules that govern such transactions for heterosexuals. Marriage, if it is a contract with the state, should be no different.

It is that debate, and that question, that must ultimately be decided before any law to define marriage can be written.

So Who Is Conservative?

Now I have been called a “squishy” Republican because I pursue the principles of my party before the principles of my faith. I have had my conservatism challenged by those, like Carter, who ignore the very meaning of Conservatism. Conservatives adhere to tradition and the continuance of trusted methods. The very word conservative implies that change to the existing structure of society should be measured and tempered.

By comparison, liberal ideology stresses the rapid adoption of new laws and the imposition of the federal government’s authority to address any perceived situation. Think there might someday be a problem with discrimination on the Internet? Legislate the solution before you have ever seen a problem. That’s the liberal way.

I am terrified because it seems, increasingly, to be the way adopted by the religious wing of the GOP. It is a disturbing trend, and one that threatens to rip the very fabric of the GOP coalition. If religious conservatives abandon the detente that exists with fiscal conservatives in pursuit of their ideology, they are threatening the ability of either of us to be successful.

However, a rift between the two factions of the GOP could be a good thing. It may bring about a fundamental realignment of electoral politics. The religious right and the tax-and-spend liberal left would unite in pursuit of a federal government that not only mandated the “right” way to live (be it through edicts on smoking or worship), but they could enforce it through taxation.

On the other side, the fiscally conservative Democrats, the libertarians in the GOP, and the moderate centrists, fearful of an all-powerful government and distrustful that it’s one-size-fits-all solutions would be either cost-effective or successful, would stand in opposition.

If anyone thinks that a Federal government empowered to weigh in on religious decisions will always weigh in on the side of the religious, they are sorely mistaken. If anyone believes that a government big enough to tell you what to do with your womb, your choice of mate, or your right to die will practice restraint in telling you what to do with your wallet, you’re high as a kite.

Thompson’s post on RedState, in response to a Ponnuru post attacking two of his votes, is right on the money.

The first case involves the issue of ‚Äúpreemption.‚Äù Congress routinely passes laws and resulting regulations which are in conflict with state laws and regulations. These federal laws do not state whether or not they are intended to preempt the state regulations. Clearly, members of Congress don‚Äôt want their constituents back home asking why their state authority has been stripped. But Congress can have it both ways. They leave the legislation ambiguous, knowing that the federal courts will more often than not interpret the statute as preempting state law, allowing elected officials in Washington ‚Äúthe federal court did it, I didn‚Äôt‚Äù excuse. This allows for no debate on the issue in Congress, just a decision by that source of so much conservative affection: the federal judiciary…

Not only was [the principle of federalism] what our founding fathers created – a federal government with limited, enumerated powers with respect for other levels of government, it also provided a basis for a proper analysis of most issues: “Is this something government should be doing? If so, at what level of government?”

As I understood it, states were supposed to be laboratories that would compete with each other, conducting civic experiments according to the wishes of their citizens. The model for federal welfare reform was the result of that process. States also allow for of diverse viewpoints that exist across the country. There is no reason that Tennesseans and New Yorkers should have to agree on everything (and they don’t).

Those who are in charge of applying the conservative litmus test should wonder why some of their brethren continue to try to federalize more things ‚Äì especially at a time of embarrassing federal mismanagement and a growing federal bureaucracy. I am afraid that such a test is often based more upon who is favored between two self-serving litigants than upon legal and constitutional principles…

Adhering to the principles of Federalism is not easy… However, if conservatives abandon this valued principle that limits the federal government, or if we selectively use it as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, then we will be doing a disservice to our country as well as the cause of conservatism.

Answers like that, and adherence to his principles, will carry Thompson far if he decides to run. Ponnuru, in a subsequent post, argues their differences are largely definitional with contrary ideas on the extent to which the Commerce clause can be applied.

I believe that the Founders‚Äô design requires the federal government to keep states from interfering with interstate commerce… Large areas of federal law ‚Äî see, for instance, telecom, securities, health insurance, and airline law are devoted precisely to this purpose. On Senator Thompson‚Äôs professed principles, however, we should have dueling state regulations to govern these industries and called it ‚Äúfederalism.‚Äù

Extending Ponnuru’s argument, those same industries (specifically telecom, airlines, and securities) increasingly have global, rather than state and local implications. Should we, in the cause of expediency, implement global solutions and allow the UN to regulate such industries? I assume Ponnuru would say no. However, to argue that the cause of commerce is impeded because different governmental jurisdictions apply different legal frameworks is laughable if you say that doesn’t hold true at a higher level as well. Why can different nations apply different rules to those industries with no adverse impact?

Thompson is right. Conservatives have, for far too long, conceded the value of federalism in the pursuit of political and economic expediency. We have sold our soul for a fast buck, or a fleeting political victory. If Thompson runs, maybe he can begin the process of helping us reclaim it.

During a meeting yesterday, conversation turned to politics and specifically to the Republican field. In the course of the discussion, I was asked my thoughts on Fred Thompson. Honestly, I replied, I haven’t spent much time thinking about Thompson.

Unlike a lot of people who see Thompson as the Law & Order guy, I always tend to think of him as CIA Director Marshall in the 1987 Kevin Costner flick No Way Out. It was a role that always seemed to suit him, and he reprised essentially that same role – sort of the gruff, no bullshit straight talking politician – in movies like In The Line Of Fire, Thunderheart, The Hunt For Red October, Born Yesterday, Flight of the Intruder, etc., etc. It’s basically the same role he plays on Law & Order, but he mastered it in other places.

Based on the conversation, I decided to go digging last night to see what I might learn about Thompson’s positions. It has been a fascinating exploration. In the short time I have spent looking at his past speeches, floor statements, and releases (a great deal of which are available via the Wayback Machine if you search for “thompson.senate.gov”), I find myself really appreciating Thompson’s view of our nation, the problems we face, and our obligations to the Constitution. Especially telling are his remarks about public corruption as related to the CATO Institute in a speech on the campaign finance scandal of the late 1990s.

[L]eaders, I believe, still have the responsibility of reminding the American people of what is at stake. We now have peace and prosperity, and people prefer not to be bothered by Washington, which has been so disappointing to them in many ways. However, the pendulum swings, and when our nation faces its next crisis, and when we need leadership, and we need direction, and we need inspiration, who in government are the people going to be willing to listen to if their leaders have so abused our most cherished institutions, including the rule of law.

That to me is the most important issue facing us today, and how we resolve it will play a large part in determining our destiny as a nation.

While I have not yet found any public statements by Thompson on the Cunningham case, Mark Foley, William Jefferson, the constitutional questions raised by the raid on Jefferson’s office, and the myriad other scandals of the past few years, I’ll keep digging to be sure his CATO speech is consistent with his position on investigations of both Democrats and Republicans.

(Read more…)

There is a reason that Congress is tasked with ratifying treaties while the President, via the State Department, is responsible for negotiating them. The simple fact is not every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be a diplomat. Nancy Pelosi proved that with her recent trip to Syria.

Today the Washington Post called her out on this ill-advised trip.

Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East…

The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president… We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush’s military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi’s attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

I’m not sure at what point the Democrats in Congress lost all sense of reason, but this one really takes the cake. If Newt Gingrich had taken it upon himself to resolve the situation in Haiti, or negotiate a peace in Northern Ireland, or meet with Somali warlords during the Clinton administration, the howls from Democrats would be deafening.

The precedent that Pelosi has set is dangerous for our Union. Should the Democrats reclaim the White House, I would suggest every Republican with some frequent flyer miles to burn should start globe trotting as a self-appointed Deputy Secretary of State. The Democrats in Congress truly believe, despite clear Constitutional direction to the contrary, it is their prerogative to micromanage American policy – both foreign and domestic.