Fred Thompson: Looking Beyond the Surface

 by Karen Norling  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Fred Thompson understands that a bedrock of American conservatism is the principle of Federalism.

When Fred Thompson served in the senate several years ago (yes, I do remember him serving in the Senate), I got the impression he was flat-out, full-bore conservative.   I didn’t see a whole lot of him, throughout the years, but when I did see him — when I heard him comment on various issues — I was favorably impressed.

Learning many months ago that he was contemplating a run for the White House, I thought to myself:  Finally, there might be someone I can feel good about voting for next year.  Someone who shares my conservative beliefs.  Someone whom my fellow-conservatives will whole-heartedly support.   Imagine my surprise to find that commentators such as Ann Coulter and George Will — as well as a fair number of evangelical Christians — were doing anything but supporting Thompson.   Ann Coulter, for example, rails against Thompson for voting not to impeach Bill Clinton on one count of perjury in 1999, as well as for consistently voting against tort reform.  George Will savages Thompson’s seemingly foolhardy support of “McCain-Feingold.”  And certain evangelical Christians basically condemn him for failing to support federal Constitutional Amendments that would ban abortion and gay marriage.

In the wake of all the criticism leveled against Fred (Coulter and Will are just a couple of the critics who’ve questioned his conservatism), I had to ask myself two questions:  1) Had I been wrong about him from the start? and 2) Was he far more liberal than I’d assumed he was?  Though my answer to both of those questions was an immediate “no,” I decided to find out for certain — i.e., to look beyond the surface of Fred’s seemingly liberal ideas and see whether they stemmed from a conservative point of view, after all.  This is what I discovered.

Before Fred even considers how he’s going to vote on the issue at hand, he asks himself two questions:  1) “Is the government better equipped than the private sector to perform . . . [this] task?” and, 2) “If so, what level of government (federal or state) ought to . . . [perform] it?”  He asks himself these questions because he is a “federalist” through and through.  What does that mean?  That means he strives to keep the federal government out of our lives as much as possible — to prevent the federal government from dictating what we can and cannot do on a daily basis.  And note, he doesn’t “check his federalism at the door” whenever staying true to that federalism might cause a few of his supporters to fall away.  Further, he doesn’t simply say what he thinks his supporters — as well as prospective supporters — want to hear.  He says what he honestly believes — whether it’s popular or not.

Fred’s federalism is just one of nine “first principles” he allows himself to be guided by.  These “first principles” are born of “the documents of our Nation’s founding” — namely, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — and “the wisdom of the ages.”  Here is a synopsis of those first principles (excluding federalism) described by Fred:

1. Individual Liberty: the overriding belief that “our rights come from God — not from government.”

2. Personal Responsibility:  “All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.”

3. Free Markets:  “We must reform our tax system, encourage investment, support entrepreneurial spirit, open markets abroad to American goods, and minimize burdensome government regulations.”

4. Limited Government:  “Government must be strong enough to protect us, competent enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the delineated powers in the Constitution.”

5. Protecting our Country:  “The first responsibility of the federal government is to protect the Nation and the American people . . . We must have a strong and effective military, capable intelligence services, and a vigorous law enforcement and homeland security capacity.”

6. Traditional American Values:  “A healthy society is predicated on belief in God; respect for all life; strong families centered on the institution of marriage — the union of a man and a woman; and self-respect and tolerance of others.”

7. The Rule of Law:  “We protect our liberty, secure our rights, and promote a just and stable society through the rule of law.  We owe ourselves and our fellow citizens our own adherence to the rules, but tough law enforcement and punishment for those who do not.  A free and independent judiciary that interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects its limited role in our system of government is essential to our security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role if we are to preserve our republic and freedom.

8. “Conserving Our Nation’s Resources: “We must always strive to ensure that the resources we use to lead our lives are here for future generations to enjoy and use as well.” 

I don’t know about you, but not one of these principles even hints of liberalism to me.

Back to Ms. Coulter and her ire over Fred’s failure to convict President Clinton on one count of perjury.   At first glance, I tended to agree with Ms. Coulter that Fred had, in essence, blown it when he (seemingly) gave Clinton a pass.  But the more I looked into the matter — the more I read what Fred had written about it (in the February 12, 1999 issue of the “Congressional Record”) — the more I understood why he voted the way he did.   He could have "taken the easy way out” — i.e., he could have convicted Clinton, without much thought, and made his constituents happy.  But instead, he did just what he had done 17 years ago, when he was appointed minority counsel for the Watergate hearings.  He “went back to the Constitution” to try to figure out how our Founding Fathers would have handled the situation.  Indeed, he set his own feelings aside, in both cases, and sought to do right by the Constitution, applying the same standards to a Democrat who had been impeached (Clinton) as he did to a Republican who was about to be impeached (Nixon).   In the end, he voted Clinton guilty of “obstruction of justice” but nothing more.   (Note: even if Fred had voted Clinton guilty on both charges, Clinton still would have walked.)  The point is, Fred was determined to stick to his principles — to follow the rule of law — whether or not doing so would make him popular with his constituents.  Citing the 18th-century Irish political philosopher, Edmund Burke, Fred readily revealed his line of reasoning:  "Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." (as qtd. in the International Herald Tribune, Sept. 30, 2007).

On the issue of tort reform, I understand why Ms. Coulter deems Fred “pro trial-attorney.”  His votes against such reform do seem to suggest that he supports the litigious sleaze-balls in our society who aim to fleece innocent Americans as often as possible.  But the truth is, Fred is not against tort reform.  He’s against the federal government trying to usurp states’ rights — against implementing tort reform at the federal level when there is absolutely no justification for doing so in the Constitution.   Can you name one federal program that hasn’t become an inordinately expensive, bureaucratic nightmare?  Could it be Social Security?  Or Medicare?  How about the Environmental Protection Agency? Or the Department of Education?  You get my point.

And besides, tort reform isn’t always a good thing.  I know from experience.   In 1998, my mother died of a misdiagnosed case of appendicitis.  Sadly enough, an ER doctor sent her home, in the midst of an acute attack, telling her she simply had a “virus” and that he didn’t “have any empty beds.”   Returning to the ER 24 hours later, she underwent an emergency appendectomy which revealed that her appendix had ruptured and spread infection throughout her internal organs.  She survived the surgery.  But she — having suffered for years from kidney disease, heart disease and diabetes — wasn’t strong enough to fight what was left of the infection and make it through the recovery.

Thanks to the $250,000 cap state legislators placed on awards for “pain and suffering,” none of the attorneys I consulted with — and I consulted with many — would take her case.   They wouldn’t take it because they couldn’t have made enough money from it to offset the risk of losing the case as well as the cost of simply taking the case to court.

So the doctor who essentially killed my mother never even got a “slap on the wrist” and still practices at that same hospital, in that same ER, to this day.  That’s one bit of tort reform my family and I could easily have done without.

On to McCain-Feingold.  Say what you will about Fred’s support of McCain-Feingold (I’ll be right there saying it with you), had it not been for that support, the “hard money” limit would never have been doubled from $1,000 to $2,000, indexed for inflation.  (Democrats would have made sure the limit remained $1,000.)  I give Fred credit for this.  But I must admit, I am as stymied as Mr. Will that Fred supported the free-speech restriction (with regard to campaign ads) the bill likewise contained.  I just try not to think about it and instead concentrate on what Fred’s been saying about it throughout the last few months.   When asked by Sean Hannity, on June 6, 2007: “Do you still support . . . [McCain-Feingold]?   Was it the right decision, in retrospect?”  Fred replied: “Part of it was, and part of it wasn’t.”  Fred went on to explain that he still believes the hard-money increase and the soft-money ban were good things, and he continues to support them.  But he no longer supports the restriction of free speech — i.e., the restrictions placed on campaign ads 30 days before primary elections and 60 before general elections.   Now, Fred is leaning toward “full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the internet immediately.” (http://www.opinionjournal.com/, March 17, 2007).  Apparently, he has seen the error of his ways.  What more can we ask for?

Now, to the evangelicals.   First, the abortion debate.  Despite the fact that Fred wants nothing more than to see Roe vs. Wade overturned — though his voting record in the Senate was 100% pro-life (including votes to ban both partial-birth abortion and human cloning) — certain evangelicals have basically crossed him off as a LIBERAL.  Why?  Because he has stated that he will not “run for president” based on the “Right to Life” plank of the GOP platform.  While he agrees with the sentiments expressed in the plank, he has said he will not make it the cornerstone of his campaign, for two reasons: 1) he knows such an amendment will never garner enough votes to pass (he seems to be the only candidate who has guts enough to admit this), and 2) he wants each state to have the authority to make its own laws concerning abortion.  In other words, he, as a federalist, wants the people in each state to regain the right that was and still is granted them by the Constitution — the right the Supreme Court recklessly disregarded in 1973: the right to vote for or against abortion.

According to Fred, and rightly so, Roe vs. Wade is nothing more than the result of activist, non-constructionist judges who took it upon themselves to rewrite the Constitution instead of simply doing what they were supposed to do with it: interpret it.  Think about it: abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution; it’s not even alluded to, yet seven Supreme Court Justices “legalized” it 34 years ago.   Yes, liberal Supreme Court Justices legalized a Constitutional “right” they themselves created.  Why did they create it?  Because they believed back then just what liberals, in general, believe today:  we are far too stupid, too unenlightened to vote the “right” way — i.e., their way.  Only they know what’s best for us.  Only they truly care about us.  Why, we should be on our knees thanking them for imparting us with their steadfast wisdom and generosity!

The point is, if Fred were to have it his way, we would have the opportunity to vote.  That’s the last thing liberals want to happen.

Before I move on to Fred’s stance on “gay marriage,” I’d like to talk about Fred’s supposed pro-abortion “lobbying” in 1991 — that hefty 19 hours he billed the Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association  over a 14-month period (when he worked for the Arent Fox law firm).  For one thing, I don’t really care what he did nearly 17 years ago.  If he was at all inclined to support abortion (and I don’t believe he was), he was no longer so inclined by the time he was elected to the Senate.  You can’t argue with his 100% pro-life voting record over the eight years he served.  But if argue you must, simply head on over to NARAL’s website and see what the zealots there have to say about him.  They’re making it perfectly clear that he is the staunch enemy of a “woman’s right to choose.” 

By the way, have you noticed how liberals, in general, are “trying to have it both ways?”  They’re telling conservatives that Fred is essentially a “pro-abortion” operative and that no one should even consider voting for him.  Yet they’re telling their fellow liberals he’s the last candidate they’d want to vote for because he is solidly pro-life.  Which way is it, folks?   (One more thing: if Fred’s so pro-abortion, why in the world did the National Right to Life Committee endorse him?)

Now, about Fred’s stance on “gay marriage.”  Unlike some evangelical Christians who are pushing for a federal Constitutional Amendment that would ban gay marriage, Fred is again pushing for states’ rights, admitting — just as he does with abortion — that a federal, Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage will never pass muster in Congress.  Specifically, Fred wants to: 1) give states the authority to recognize gay marriages only if those marriages are approved by voters or legislatures, and 2) specify that no state would be required to recognize gay marriages approved in other states.   Fred, you see, is determined to return to us the right to vote.  Liberals, on the other hand, are determined to continue to deny us that right — i.e., to continue to take the authority the Constitution grants us and lavish it upon those who do not, according to the Constitution, have that authority: judges.  (Note: it’s been four years since the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts “legalized” gay marriage, yet not one other state has followed suit.  In fact, 42 states now have laws prohibiting gay marriage and 27 states have Constitutional Amendments prohibiting gay marriage (http://www.stateline.org/).  Doesn’t this tell you something about the “will of the people” and why liberals are so afraid of it?

Indeed, Fred refers to both the issue of abortion and the issue of gay marriage as judicially-created problems that call for a judicially-created solution — that solution being to appoint non-activist judges who will follow the law and not simply “make it up they go along” (Fred Thompson, “Second Kates,” National Review Online, May 10, 2007).  We have only to look at some of the comments he has made in the recent — as well as the not-so-recent — past, to rest assured he’ll appoint precisely the type of judges he says he will: conservative, non-activist judges who “respect” their “limited role” in our “system of government” (see Principle #7).  In a speech he gave at the Council for National Policy on May 12, 2007, titled “First Things First,” he says: “Our founders established an independent federal judiciary to decide cases, not social policy. Yet more and more that’s exactly what it [the judiciary] is doing.  Roe vs. Wade is a classic example . . . if judges continue to act like politicians[,] they will get the respect currently given to politicians.  The antidote for this, of course, is good judges” (as qtd. on National Review Online, Sept. 14, 2007).  While being interviewed by Miles O’Brian on CNN, on July 20, 2005, he said: “Whatever one’s personal views  . . .  [are] as a judge, the main obligation and duty is to set aside any of those views and apply the law and the Constitution.  That’s what good judges do if they’re ethically . . . carrying out their duty.”

Finally, to the laziness charge.  I can’t count the times I’ve heard or read, in so many words, that: Fred was a lazy Senator who had “nothing to show” for the years he spent in the Senate.  Richard Cohen, from the Washington Post, snivels: “If Thompson’s name came up in some sort of free-association game, he would be a genuine stumper:  Thompson and what?  There is no Thompson Act, Thompson Compromise, Thompson Hearing, Thompson Speech or Thompson Anything that comes to mind . . . [he] came and went from the Senate as if he was never there.” (June 5, 2007)   Borrowing quotes from the Washington Times and Newsweek, a September 12, 2007 post on the North Dakota Democratic NPL Party Blog laments: “. . . [Thompson] kept a lean formal schedule, did the bare minimum to get by and . . . was known to duck out of late-night debates . . . Thompson has never been an enthusiastic politician.  GOP elders had to plead with him to run for the Senate in 1994 . . . some close to him question whether moving into the White House is truly . . . [his] life ambition.”

Leave it to liberals to take what’s virtuous and make it a fault worthy only of contempt.  I rejoice in the fact that Fred wasn’t hell-bent to make a name for himself in the Senate — i.e., that he didn’t author, sponsor, or co-sponsor a slew of new legislation.  (We don’t need more laws.  We’ve got far too many already.)   Likewise, I say Hallelujah! to the fact that he “kept a lean schedule and did the bare minimum to get by.”  (The less time Senators spend “doing their jobs,” the better off we are.)  “He’s never been an enthusiastic politician”?  No.  He’s simply never been driven by self-elevating, egotistical desire. 

It’s laughable to think, as liberals obviously do, that “GOP elders” pleading with him to “run for the Senate” should be construed as a count against him.  How many men have been so highly regarded, politically speaking, that their fellow-party-members have beseeched them to run for anything?  (And by the way, Fred won by a landslide — by  more than a 20% margin — each of the two times he did, in fact, run.)

Fred puts his time in the Senate in perspective:  “It doesn’t always have to do with putting your name on a piece of legislation . . . there was an awful lot of bad legislation that I helped stop. (http//www.opinionjournal.com/, June 4, 2007).

Having looked “beyond the surface” of Fred’s seemingly liberal ideas, I have come to conclude precisely what I concluded in the first place:  Fred is far more conservative, all the way around, than any of the other Republican candidates.  He truly does “stand out from the pack,” so to speak.   If you don’t believe me, just take a peek at some of the things he’s said, repeatedly, throughout the last few months.  Then ask yourself:  “What other candidate(s) have I heard making statements such as these?”

With regard to his eight years in the Senate, he ‘s said: “I put term limits on myself . . . I didn’t want a career in politics, but I thought giving it your best shot and doing what you thought was right would free you up.  And if you got sent home a little early, that . . . would be OK, because that’s where you were going anyway” (as qtd.on: http//:abcnews.go.com/, October 10, 2007).   Likewise, when asked by Byron York to name two or three of his greatest Senatorial accomplishments, Fred replied, “You mean, besides leaving the Senate?” (National Review Online, Sept. 7, 2007).

About being honest with the American people and not pandering for votes, he’s said: “You’re either going to do the right thing, or you’re not.  If you are politically tacking all the time, it makes life too long and too complicated” (NY Times, Sept. 30, 2007).   “The difficulties facing our country are too serious not to tell the truth about what we’re going to have to do as a nation.  It’s sober in a way, but it’s optimistic in a way . . .” (Ed Morrissey interview with Thompson, http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/, August 30, 2007).

On the issue of his desire to run for President, Fred told a reporter from an Indianapolis TV news station:  “I haven’t been deciding that I wanted to run for president since I was High School prom king — and I never was, incidentally” (NY Times, Sept. 30, 2007).  Further, he remarks to Sean Hannity: “If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office . . . [he’s] got . . . [his] priorities mixed up” (Hannity & Colmes, June 6, 2007).  Further yet, he has said: “I feel deeply that I am . . . [running for President] for the right reasons.  I love my country, and I’m concerned about its future” (Fred’s announcement speech, via webcast, Sept. 6, 2007).

If you want to elect someone for President who will stay true to his conservative principles, someone who will strive to keep the federal government out of our lives as much as possible, someone who will never be afraid to be honest — even when he knows being honest could cost him a few votes - -Fred Thompson is your man.

I pray to God we nominate him.  For if we don’t, we’ll have two exceedingly liberal individuals to choose from: 1) pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro gay-rights, pro illegal-immigration, pro activist-judge Rudy Giuliani, or 2):  pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro gay-rights, pro illegal-immigration pro activist-judge Hillary Clinton.

May we not go down that disastrous road with either one of them.

Elections & Political Parties

Read more articles by Karen Norling