I have a pet theory that Ramesh Ponnuru, rumored to be the editor-in-waiting of National Review, has a long-term plan to "triangulate" between traditional conservatism and neoconservatism. It's easy to see why NR might want to do so: it's essentially in agreement with the neocons and Republican-party apparatchiks, but wants to continue to pretend to speak for the Right more broadly. That, and presumably no one wants to go down with the sinking ship of nominal neoconservatism (as distinct from actual neoconservatism, which will continue to flourish even under a Kerry administration).
A case in point for this triangulation theory is Ponnuru's discussion of Locke v. Davey. Ponnuru actually considers the old, pre-neocon conservative argument that the federal government has no business telling the states whether or not they can forbid the use of their own tax revenue for providing scholarships to divinity students. He considers it in order, ultimately, to dismiss this argument and say that federalizing the issue is a-ok by conservative standards after all. Here's his conclusion:
Conservatives have abandoned the no-incorporation doctrine for a lot of reasons. There has been historical work suggesting that the public that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did indeed intend by ratifying it to apply the Bill of Rights, or at least some of its provisions, against the states. But I suspect that as least as important a reason conservatives have abandoned the older view is that it's just so far away from where we are now. Nobody now challenges the older liberal applications of the incorporation doctrine; indeed, that they were originally considered liberal is now lost in the mists of time. You would have to be a pretty flinty old-school conservative not to use the doctrine yourself in a cause with as much practical urgency as school choice. And there aren't many such conservatives left.
Of course, Ponnuru's argument here -- couched as a concession -- is that the older conservative understanding of the Constitution is just out of date, it simply cannot pertain to today's problems and such "important" issues as school vouchers. A bit like the traditionally left-wing "living" view of the Constitution. So far, so bad, and so predictable. But why does Ponnuru even dredge up the old states' rights argument, only to discard it without serious thought?
My guess is that he does it for the sake of his own credibility. He's trying to look a little less Jacobin-like than the more straightforward neocons, and by citing this genuinely conservative argument, even if he does reject it, he establishes his credentials as someone who knows the history and principles of conservatism, and who therefore knows what he's doing when he trashes them. He perhaps has to do this because there are now enough alternatives to National Review out there that he would be outflanked from the Right if he simply made a Leftist, fairness-based argument for the feds forcing states to treat religion the way he wants.
Having said that, it's just a guess on my part and whatever Ponnuru's motives may be, it's a step, however small, in the right direction -- no pun intended -- just to see a states-rights argument mentioned by NR. Perhaps, with enough pressure, we'll see much more of this.
