What was supposed to be a panel on executive orders and federal spending at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference Thursday unexpectedly evolved into a debate on the need for small government conservatism.
The shift in direction came primarily from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and conservative icon George F. Will, as the two led a highly implicative talk about how conservatives must properly use the Constitution and law to enforce the separation of powers and keep government in check.
Will lamented presidential candidates who merely promise action, like creating jobs. “Presidents don’t do any of that stuff,” he said. “I’ll vote for the next person who says if I’m elected I’m not going to do that much.”
He also explained how the problem of increasing use of executive power is “a problem that is older than the republic.” The dilemma of conservatives trusting presidents too much derives from the decrease in “the healthy suspicion of presidential power,” which is due to the “delightful experience of their own president,” Ronald Reagan, Will argued.
Will suggested conservatives turn to the courts for a once controversial approach which is increasing in acceptance and popularity – judicial engagement. This is a judicial approach different than activism and restraint, which emphasizes, among other things, the need for courts to ensure that government does not overstep its constitutionally-outlined bounds nor use power reserved for other branches.
“What we really want is a properly engaged judiciary, and part of the proper engagement of the judiciary is to referee the violations of the separations of powers,” he said.
While neither explicitly endorsing nor opposing judicial engagement, Coburn concurred with Will about the often nonexistent role of the Constitution in government. “I agree with George the biggest problem in Congress is we’re not specific enough in what we legislate” and “lack of a work ethic,” said an edifying Coburn.
He suggested that congressmen “ought to reconnect with the Constitution when legislating,” referring to the tendency of congressmen to compose legislation with blatant disregard to our founding document. He explained that congressmen fall into this habit because of “laziness,” and “lack of leadership.”
“We’re not running under the rule of law – we’re running under the rule of rulers,” Coburn said.
The Oklahoma senator then applied the conversation to regulatory reform, asserting that any “regulation that has the impact of 100 million dollars or more on the economy ought to have to be approved by Congress.” Currently, regulatory agencies can enact these rules on their own, however legislation could ensure that applicable regulations must be approved by Congress. Such a change would arguably decrease the amount of laws with such a harmful impact on the economy.
Will then suggested another solution. “Give me half a dozen more Tom Coburns, and we wouldn’t be up here talking like this.” “There’s hundreds of thousands of Tom Coburns out there,” replied Coburn.
Will’s talk of judicial engagement is arguably the next piece in the sequence of judicial engagement becoming mainstream in small government conservatism, while Coburn’s emphasis of regulatory reform foreshadows conservatives being more active in reform. These two concepts are tied together with a string composed of law and constitutionality.
