Conservatism (US Politics)

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares62 Views

    Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks

    by

    The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed.President Trump appears to be declaring independence from outside constraints on how he nominates judges, signaling that he is looking for loyalists who will uphold his agenda and denouncing the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term.Late Thursday, after a ruling struck down his tariffs on most imported goods, Mr. Trump attacked the Federalist Society, leaders of which heavily influenced his selection of judges during his first presidency.“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” Mr. Trump asserted on social media. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”Hours earlier Thursday, the Justice Department severely undercut the traditional role of the American Bar Association in vetting judicial nominees. A day before, Mr. Trump picked a loyalist who has no deep ties to the conservative legal movement for a life-tenured appeals court seat, explaining that his pick could be counted on to rule in ways aligned with his agenda.Together, the moves suggest that Mr. Trump may be pivoting toward greater personal involvement and a more idiosyncratic process for selecting future nominees. Such a shift would fit with his second-term pattern of steamrolling the guardrails that sometimes constrained how he exercised power during his first presidency.But it could also give pause to judges who may be weighing taking senior status, giving Mr. Trump an opportunity to fill their seats. Conservatives have been eyeing in particular the seats of the Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, who will turn 77 next month, and Samuel A. Alito, 75.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares135 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Vote Against E.V. Mandate Felt Like an Attack on California, Democrats Say

      by

      For decades, California has been able to adopt its own emissions regulations, effectively setting the bar for carmakers nationally. And for just as long, Republicans have resented the state’s outsize influence.There is little question that California leaders already see fossil fuels as a relic of the past.At the Southern California headquarters of the state’s powerful clean-air regulator, the centerpiece art installation depicts in limestone a petrified gas station. Fuel nozzles lie on the ground in decay, evoking an imagined extinction of gas pumps.For more than half a century, the federal government has allowed California to set its own stringent pollution limits, a practice that has resulted in more efficient vehicles and the nation’s most aggressive push toward electric cars. Many Democratic-led states have adopted California’s standards, prompting automakers to move their national fleets in the same direction.With that unusual power, however, has come resentment from Republican states where the fossil fuel industry still undergirds their present and future. When Republicans in Congress last week revoked the state’s authority to set three of its mandates on electric vehicles and trucks, they saw it not just as a policy reversal but also as a statement that liberal California should be put in its place.“We’ve created a superstate system where California has more rights than other states,” Representative Morgan Griffith, who represents rural southwestern Virginia, said in an interview. “My constituents think most folks in California are out of touch with reality. You see this stuff coming out of California and say, ‘What?’”Federal law typically pre-empts state law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But in 1967, the federal government allowed smoggy California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to enact its own clean-air standards that were tougher than federal limits, because the state historically had some of the most polluted air in the nation. Federal law also allows other states to adopt California’s standards as their own under certain circumstances.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said last week that the state would fight in court to preserve its autonomy in setting emissions rules.Rich Pedroncelli/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares185 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Revolt Reflects a Core Party Divide Over Spending and Debt

      by

      Whether the ultraconservatives dig in and force big changes to the megabill carrying President Trump’s agenda or capitulate, as they have in the past, will determine the fate of their party’s signature legislation.To a small but crucial group of hard-right House Republicans, the tax and spending cut package produced by their colleagues to deliver what President Trump calls the “big, beautiful bill” was nothing more than a homely cop-out.The handful of lawmakers who blocked their own party’s sprawling domestic policy measure from advancing out of a key committee on Friday acted out of a fundamentally different view of federal spending and debt than the rest of the G.O.P. They are single-mindedly focused on slashing deficits by restructuring the government to dramatically scale back social programs, whatever the political consequences.With their party in control of the House, Senate and White House, they view their fellow Republicans as timid, squandering a golden opportunity to turn the government’s finances around in a long overdue course correction. Instead, they see Republican leaders, catering to swing district members worried about their re-election, delivering a half-measure that, as far as the hard-liners are concerned, falls woefully short on cuts — and the ones it did make were gimmicky.“I’m not going to sit here and say that everything is hunky-dory,” Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas and one of the leading evangelists of deep spending cuts, said on Friday as he tore into his own party’s legislation. “This is the Budget Committee. We are supposed to do something to actually result in balanced budgets, but we’re not doing it.”It remains to be seen whether the anti-deficit fundamentalists are really dug in against the legislation or shopping for concessions that could allow them to claim a partial victory against deficit spending and still ultimately fall in line behind Mr. Trump. They have earned a reputation both for revolting against their own party at crucial moments and for backing down before their intransigence actually kills a top Republican priority — often without achieving what they initially demanded.But for a few days at least, the recalcitrance of Mr. Roy and his fellow deficit hawks, and their willingness to challenge a majority of their own party, has tied down the entire Republican legislative agenda.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Writing Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Face Risks on Medicaid

      by

      Representatives from swing districts face tough votes as soon as next week, when key House panels are scheduled to consider legislation that would cut popular programs to pay for President Trump’s agenda.Gabe Evans, then a Republican state lawmaker in Colorado, defeated a Democratic member of Congress in November by less than 1 percentage point — just 2,449 votes — writing his ticket to Washington.Now Mr. Evans, 39, is helping to write legislation that could cement his own ticket back home.The first-term congressman, whose swing district just north of Denver includes 151,749 Medicaid recipients, sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Republican budget resolution that lays the groundwork for sweeping legislation to enact President Trump’s domestic agenda instructs the panel, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid, to slash spending by $880 billion over the next decade to help pay for a large tax cut. That number is impossible to reach without substantially reducing the cost of Medicaid, the government program that provides health insurance for lower-income Americans.As Republicans in Congress struggle to coalesce around the core pieces of what Mr. Trump calls his “one big, beautiful bill,” Mr. Evans and other G.O.P. lawmakers from some of the most competitive districts in the country are facing committee votes next week to approve cuts to popular programs that could come back to haunt them politically.And Democrats are gleeful at the prospect of Republican incumbents going on the record supporting the effort.“These members of Congress won with fewer votes than the number of people in their district on Medicaid,” said Jesse Ferguson, a veteran Democratic strategist and a former spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Voting for this is like being the captain of the Titanic and deciding to intentionally hit the iceberg.”The group includes Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Republican of Iowa, who also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee and is on even shakier ground than Mr. Evans, despite having warded off a challenger multiple times. Last year, Ms. Miller-Meeks, who represents 132,148 Medicaid recipients, won her seat by 0.2 percent, or 799 votes. Her local office in Davenport has been besieged by demonstrators concerned about spending cuts.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Charles Koch Says Many in the Country Are ‘Abandoning’ Its Principles

      by

      In a rare appearance on Thursday to receive an award from the Cato Institute, Mr. Koch made oblique references to President Trump and his tariffs, without mentioning his name.Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and conservative megadonor, made a rare public appearance Thursday evening and called for libertarians to embrace their principles, in comments that seemed obliquely directed at a Republican Party taken over by President Trump.Mr. Koch was at one time among the most powerful forces in Republican politics. In the 2016 election cycle alone, he and his allies spent $750 million to promote the party’s candidates and causes. But his political power has waned significantly since Mr. Trump’s election that year, and he is now seldom seen in Washington. And neither do Republicans worry much about his plans in a party that is much more in Mr. Trump’s image than in Mr. Koch’s.But Mr. Koch, who will turn 90 this November, showed up in Washington to accept an award from the Cato Institute. Almost 50 years ago, Mr. Koch helped found Cato, one of the nation’s prominent libertarian think tanks. By 2012, Mr. Koch and his brother David had given about $30 million to the institute, but the relationship soured and the Kochs ended up suing the nonprofit before settling that June.Accepting a prize named after Milton Friedman, the free-market economist, on Thursday, Mr. Koch made his first public remarks since Mr. Trump was inaugurated in January and enacted a number of policies that are anathema to Mr. Friedman’s and Mr. Koch’s politics, most notably the sweeping tariffs.Mr. Koch dispensed with the cheery rhetoric of most conservatives these days. Speaking about the subsidies and protectionism of the past, he said that “you can see why we’re in the mess we’re in today.” The billionaire often speaks about his core “principles” in business and philanthropy.“With so much change, chaos and conflict, too many people and organizations are abandoning these principles,” Mr. Koch later said, not uttering Mr. Trump’s name. He added, “But we know from history, this just makes the problems worse. And people have forgotten that when principles are lost, so are freedoms.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      David Horowitz, Leftist Turned Trump Defender, Is Dead at 86

      by

      Once a Marxist, he came to embrace hard-right positions, including the falsehood that Mr. Trump won in 2020, and to mentor Stephen Miller, later the Trump adviser.David Horowitz, a radical leftist of the 1960s who did a political about-face to become an outspoken conservative author and activist, writing that Barack Obama had “betrayed” America, and an ardent cheerleader for Donald J. Trump, died on Tuesday. He was 86.The David Horowitz Freedom Center, a think tank he founded in Southern California, said the cause was cancer. His wife, April Horowitz, said he died at his home in Colorado.Once a self-described Marxist, Mr. Horowitz executed a dizzying transit from the extreme left to the extreme right. He argued that the Black Lives Matter movement had fueled racial hatred; he opposed Palestinian rights; he denounced the news media and universities as tools of the left; and he falsely claimed that Mr. Trump had won the 2020 election, which Mr. Horowitz called “the greatest political crime” in American history.A prolific author since his early 20s, Mr. Horowitz published several pro-Trump books, including “Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America” (2017) and “The Enemy Within: How a Totalitarian Movement Is Destroying America” (2021). The enemies he accused of totalitarian impulses were the mainstream Democrats Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, and Kamala Harris, then the vice president.Mr. Horowitz was a mentor to Stephen Miller, Mr. Trump’s top domestic policy adviser, whom he met when Mr. Miller was a California high school student fervidly critical of multiculturalism.At Duke University, Mr. Miller started a chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, a grass-roots advocacy group founded by Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz asked him to help coordinate an “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” on college campuses, according to Jean Guerrero, a biographer of Mr. Miller, writing in Politico in 2020.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Harvard May Not Be the Hero We Want, but It Is the Hero We Need

      by

      Like many of its conservative alumni, I have a complicated relationship with Harvard.I grew up in a small town in Kentucky, where I went to public school. I attended college at a small Christian university in Nashville. I never had a thought that I could attend Harvard Law School. But friends urged me to try.When I got in, it was so shocking that it felt miraculous. I knew it would change my life — and it did. It gave me some of my closest friends, it gave me career opportunities I couldn’t previously fathom, and it kindled in me a love for constitutional law.At the same time, the school had profound problems. The student culture was remarkably intolerant and contentious. This was the height of early 1990s political correctness, and I was sometimes shouted down by angry classmates.In 1993, GQ published a long report from the law school called “Beirut on the Charles,” and it described a place that “pitted faculty members against faculty members, faculty members against students” and where students were “waging holy war on one another.”The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. In the 30 years since my graduation, the school has continued to change lives, and it has maintained one of the least tolerant cultures in American higher education.For the second year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression (where I served as president a number of years ago) has ranked Harvard last in the country in its annual free speech rankings. The environment, FIRE determined, was “abysmal.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Francis, a Progressive Pope, Catalyzed the Catholic Right in the U.S.

      by

      His critics were fellow clergy as well as elected officials in the ascendant wing of the American Catholic political realm.A few months before he died on Monday, Pope Francis entered what turned out to be his last high-profile skirmish with his flock in the United States. In a letter in February to American bishops, with whom he had his own complicated relationship over the years, the pope criticized President Trump’s treatment of migrants, claiming that deportations violate the “dignity of many men and women, and of entire families.”Though he didn’t name names, he also seemed to to rebut Vice President JD Vance’s recent interpretation of a Catholic theological concept. Mr. Vance, who is Catholic, met briefly with Pope Francis at his home in Rome on Easter Sunday, making the vice president among the last people to see the ailing pontiff alive.The slap in February, with its intertwining layers of politics and theology, was typical of the often fraught public relationship between Pope Francis and conservative American Catholics. When Pope Francis took office in 2013, many Catholics in the United States were optimistic that his emphasis on inclusivity and ministry to the margins would lead to a “Francis effect” that would enliven the American church for years to come.Pope Francis did end up energizing American Catholics, but not only in the way his supporters hoped. His papacy galvanized a traditionalist stream that had always existed in the American church, and that strengthened and expanded throughout his papacy as a tide of resistance rose in the American church hierarchy, in Washington and in the pews.Pope Francis’ critics represent a minority of the American church but a powerful one. They were not only fellow clergy but also elected officials in a newly ascendant wing of the American Catholic political realm, as Catholic power in Washington developed harder edges in the final months of his life. President Trump stocked his cabinet with conservative Catholics, and elevated Mr. Vance as vice president, a Catholic convert whose views on church doctrine are deeply enmeshed with his political priorities. Catholics make up more than a third of Mr. Trump’s cabinet, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio.But Pope Francis’ critics in the American church had objections that ranged far beyond disagreements over public policy. Critics, including some clergy, have accused him of sowing confusion on bedrock church doctrines, and at the same time of wielding an autocratic leadership style behind a facade of humility and informality. He was seen as haphazardly rushing the church into the future, at a time when many American traditionalists were questioning the changes of Vatican II.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Pope Francis’ Legacy in the U.S.: A More Open, and Then Divided, Church

      by

      Months into his papacy in 2013, Pope Francis was asked about gay priests, and he responded, “Who am I to judge?” Across the United States, Catholics and non-Catholics alike took a collective gasp.For years the Roman Catholic Church in the United States had deeply aligned with the religious right in fierce conflicts over issues like abortion, gay marriage and contraception. But Pope Francis wanted a church “with doors always wide open,” as he said in his first apostolic exhortation.Words like these made the new pope a revolutionary figure in the United States, in both the Catholic Church and the nation’s politics. He challenged each to shift its moral focus toward issues like poverty, immigration and war, and to confront the realities of income inequality and climate change. Pope Francis offered a progressive, public Catholicism in force, coinciding with the Obama era, and at the beginning of his pontificate, he moved the U.S. church forward from the sex-abuse scandals that roiled his predecessor’s pontificate.He pushed church leaders to be pastors, not doctrinaires, and elevated bishops in his own mold, hoping to create lasting tonal change in the church through its leadership. He gave voice to the growing share of Hispanic Catholics, as the American church grew less white, and appointed the first African-American cardinal. He allowed priests to bless same-sex couples and made it easier for divorced and remarried Catholics to participate in church life.In doing so, he captured the imaginations of millions both inside and outside the American church who had long felt rejected. At a time of increasing secularization, the world’s most visible Christian leader gave hope to many U.S. non-Catholics who saw in him a moral visionary while much of public Christianity in America took a rightward turn.“He made the church a more welcoming place,” said Joe Donnelly, former Democratic senator from Indiana, who was the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See under President Biden. “For Americans of all different economic strata, for divorced Americans, for basically everyone in our country, his arms were always open.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More