Republicans used to be sensible.

Take Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. Here's what the consummate "sensible Republican" said about the Constitution:

I should like to point out that the meaning of the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

Makes sense, to anyone who knows anything about the law and legal history. But these days Republicans generally subscribe to a fairly radical* view of constitutional interpretation known as "originalism," which (in a nutshell) holds that the meaning of the Constitution is NOT what the Supreme Court says it is, but what the Founding Fathers intended it to mean (or, alternatively, what people at the time of the Founding Fathers understood it to mean). As a result, Republicans hate it when their own president (Bush Sr.) nominates a sensible conservative like Justice Souter, and are only happy when they get radical conservatives like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas.

Eisenhower also said:

to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government.

Sounds sensible, no? In other words, the federal government should do what "the mass of the people" wants it to do. And it should employ reason and moderation. But Republicans -- from Nixon to Reagan, to GWB, and all their right-wing supporters -- have instead employed secrecy and radical, unlawful action, rather than political processes, reason and moderation. (Nixon had Watergate, Reagan had Iran-Contra -- and we're just beginning to understand GWB's radicalism.) And of course, the real leader of the Republicans these days is Rush Limbaugh** -- certainly not the exemplar of reason or moderation.

Want more evidence that the sensible Republicans like Eisenhower have become an endangered species? Well, here's Eisenhower again -- from the same letter quoted above:

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws...you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few...Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

That's right: Eisenhower thought the radical conservatives who wanted to do away with Social Security and labor laws, etc., were "a tiny splinter group" -- and "stupid." Yet today, these radical conservatives dominate the Republican party. They rose as a movement that began with Barry Goldwater, took power under Reagan, and culminated in the failed presidency of Bush Jr. The sensible Republicans like Eisenhower have been marginalized, silenced, driven almost to extinction. The radicals dominate the GOP -- and John Carter is one of those hardcore radicals.

But maybe, with any luck, Eisenhower will turn out to be right after all. Maybe the Bush administration signaled the collapse of radical right-wing conservatism -- maybe, if we're lucky, the radical Republicans are on their way out, never to be heard from again in our political history. If we're lucky, maybe the Republicans will return to Eisenhowerian sensibleness.

We can hope -- and we can help them on their way out, too. Vote for somebody other than John Carter in 2010, for example. Consign the radicals to the history books, once and for all.


* I use the word "radical" here because originalism -- as conservatives tend to construe it -- stands outside the historically mainstream view of the law and constitutional interpretation. There have been very, very few so-called originalists on the Supreme Court, and the Court's institutional approach to constitutional interpretation has always been that "the Constitution means what the Court says it means." Yes, many justices throughout history have referred to "original intent" or "original understanding" in their reasoning for a particular decision -- but there's a big difference between (a) occasionally relying on these "original" factors to support a decision and (b) adopting the "originalist" dogma as the singular, proper view of constitutional meaning. The former is commonplace; the latter is radical.

** Rush is embracing his role as leader of the Republicans, too, recently telling journalists that "the antidote to Obamaism" is "conservatism, as articulated by me."