Physician Heal Thyself: The Case of Sen. Tom Coburn

Tom Coburn’s article published on May 27, 2008 in the Wallstreet Journal is entitled, Republicans are in Denial. (Click on the link if you wish to read it.) While I have great respect for Sen. Coburn, his article descends in an attempt to reconcile the flawed philosophy of the past eight years by attempting to marry the apathy of the GOP, compassionate conservativism, pork barrel spending, a call to action instead of “messaging”, and a plea for the troops to rally around Sen. McCain.

If I were a patient of Dr. Coburn, and he told me that I had a bunch of symptoms leading him to believe I should just tough it out and go back to my old ways, I’d have a real problem. In fact, I’d be inclined to seek a second medical opinion.  Dr. Coburn is essentially telling us to act healthy and we’ll be fine. However, he doesn’t tell us what “healthy” means. In other words, he avoids defining what a true conservative is. It is purposeful. If he did come up with a definition, he couldn’t have written the article. This makes him disingenuous and it is precisely why the GOP is in a  state of apathy.

By the way, have you come up with a definition? Will you, Republican, define conservative to mean “limited government, less taxes, and more freedom”? If so, that is utterly meaningless. Why? For starters, how much should government be limited? On what areas? How much lower should taxes be? How much more freedom? If these troubling questions aren’t addressed, the answers are unsettling. After all, a Congressman who has voted to reduce an agency by .10 cents is a conservative if we adhere to the plain meaning of words. Want a clearer picture? Suppose a democrat wishes to abolish the “Leave no Child Behind” Act. Under this definition, she is a conservative. 

So let me offer a different but older message that will cure our apathy in Moses-like fashion. I’ll define a conservative so that we can measure a candidate’s philosophy. You’ll see that the good doctor is himself a carrier of a disease he has now forgotten how to treat.

Modern Conservative vs. Conservative?

The reason the GOP has widespread apathy is because there are folks who have cloaked themselves with the mantle of conservative. They have defined themselves to ”hold the line in the place where the last liberal moved it.” Remember Republican? In 1980, we wanted to abolish the Department of Education. In 2000, President Bush removed this from the Party platform even though he told us that he was a “strict” constructionist. Then he introduced his famous federal education legislation as though he were a prime minister. Do you see the “hold the line” philosophy? No, I didn’t come up with this analysis on my own. F. A. Hayek brought it to light:

 It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes – with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still.

(Emphasis added.) F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty  (1960).

A dictionary definition gives some further vague platitudes. A conservative is defined as one who is “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. . . . Having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.” Dictionary.com

I direct now direct you to Barry Goldwater and the end of Chapter 2 of his book, the Conscience of a Conservative (1960). He gave us a singular description and definition of what the Conservative candidate would look and act like:

 The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

That is precisely what and how a Conservative speaks and exactly why Dr. Coburn’s article fails miserably. Politicians only understand pain or pleasure. Senator, you may begin to feel pain soon enough that will lead you to heal thyself.