Conservatives for big government
Stop the presses: E.J. Dionne has a good point:
This Republican presidential campaign is demonstrating conclusively that there is an unbridgeable divide between the philosophical commitments conservative candidates make before they are elected and what they will have to do when faced with the day-to-day demands of practical governance. Conservatives in power have never been — and can never be — as anti-government as they are in a campaign.
I certainly don’t agree with everything Dionne says in the rest of his article, but that’s not the point. The point is that Dionne happens to be right in this case—and not only that, but that it’s difficult for politicians to act any differently and stay in power, because people almost demand it. It’s human nature to want to be given something for what seems like nothing, or to covet the possessions of others (or else there would have been no need for that Tenth Commandment*).
When there’s a liberal candidate, the game is right up front and center, naked and out in the open: elect me and you’ll get X, Y, and Z. Repbulicans and conservatives don’t tend to do that. But many (although not all) conservative candidates talk the fiscal austerity talk and then have trouble walking the walk. Just as a small example, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all have records that belie their small government and fiscal austerity pledges in one way or another.
What would any of them do if elected president? And what would they even have the power to do; after all, it’s mainly up to the legislature, although presidents can offer guidance and vetoes. Hard to say. I’m not writing this post in order to get into the minutiae of each man’s record on this score (that would become a book), but I do want to say that there’s support for arguments that each one might be telling the truth or that each one might be either incorrect or lying.
A majority of people may think we need to cut spending and keep taxes low, as well as lower the deficit, but the reality of what the results of that would actually be on a personal basis doesn’t seem quite as attractive. “Do it to him, not to me!” is the cry when the time for tough-love action really comes around.
You can say (as the liberal Dionne does) that it’s an example of the hypocrisy of Republicans, but the truth is that the public seems to demand it. And that’s just human nature, as the Founding Fathers seemed to be well aware, if this quote (supposedly by Ben Franklin but whose provenance is somewhat sketchy) is any indication:
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
[* The anti-coveting commandment is sometimes given just as number 10, but sometimes it includes 9 and 10, depending on the religion and denomination doing the numbering.]
Guess the electorate voting themselves money from the public treasury has become as American as . . . dolmades, spanakopita and baklava.
Sigh.
“One may remark in this connexion also the notoriously baseless assumption that party-designations connote principles, and that party-pledges imply performance.”
Albert J Nock
At some point, the point where things have gotten out of hand, events are more likely to rule than the rulers. The ruling elite here, as also in the EU, are now reactors more than actors. So long as the politicians of whatever ilk recommend solutions tantamount to sticking ever more fingers into ever more leaky dikes they will disappoint the Founding Fathers, the country and the future. Only diehard Party members will be salved as their only principle is power, the power to direct which finger next plugs which hole.
Where and when I grew up, to be offered charity was offensive and demeaning. You didn’t offer it and you didn’t take it and no one needed it. If one was actually destitute or down on their luck, you asked family or your Church while seeking to repay the charity with labor. It’s almost impossible to convey to kids today the stigma, the disdain, the disgust which was accorded those who received for free what they could have had by labor.
The other day, I was walking to work as I do to get as least some exercise, and the nice lady who spends some of her time as a crosswalk guard at a busy intersection informed they were giving out free stuff somewhere. I’m afraid my reaction was too immediate as I turned around with a big frown and the words forming in my mind, “what the hell do I want with free stuff.” Do not fear gentle reader, I did not upbraid the kindly woman, but the episode did remind me that I have become a stranger in my own land.
The old country saying is “if I can’t afford it, I don’t need it.” Now the view among many is “if I can’t afford it, someone should buy it for me.”
Another way of describing how the ratchet is always toward more government and less liberty. Eventually you run out of other peoples’ money. And eventually you run out of faith in the entire structure.
Economics dictates the deficit will be cut. The issue is whether we do it by a fractious-but-somewhat-orderly Constitutional method, or if we prefer the Republic die a sudden “unexpected” death. She will not go quietly in her sleep.
There are many ways a President can increase liberty without Congressional assent. Executive orders can be withdrawn. Prosecutions can be foregone. Regulators can be given better priorities. Overspending can be vetoed, empowering a more Constitutionally-minded minority.
Sadly none of the “orthodox” candidates appears to have an interest in using the office to increase liberty. Whether by direct handout or indirect “job creation policy”, they presume to control a magic teat that feeds us all.
What used to be the Invisible Hand, of individual self-interest serving the common good is now the Invisible Handout of government serving favored industries.
Since Dionne is presumably writing about the Presidential race, I think he’s putting up a big straw man. There is the legislative branch to consider, plus the ossified Civil Service rules for Federal employees, and the essentially intractable inertia of the bureaucracy. Realizing that, what’s a conservative candidate to do? Campaign like a wimp on the issues? Whoops, that’s Romney.
UMMMM, M J R, have you perused HotAir today!
There are three, at least, articles not so much for brokered convention but leading that way and definitely showing Romney weakness:
Winning with social conservatism.
Poll: Hey, Romney still leads in Arizona, by three.
Mitt Romney’s near death candidacy.
Love Hugh Hewitt, but he may be wrong.
I did peruse Hot Air today (you got ^this^ prognostication right !)
Hugh Hewitt may be wrong, definitely.
I definitely agree as well that Romney has weaknesses, some serious. (I am not at all happy with them.) (His candidacy is certainly struggling, but that’s not my point here.)
For me, Hewitt’s point is what will probably happen, weaknesses and all. I agree, not as a pro-Romney guy (I’m holding my nose), but as an observer of what’s likely and what’s not as likely. Your mileage may vary, but . . .
I think it’s more plausible than your Palin scenario, but that’s just my opinion. That and a subway token gets you a ride on the subway.
Cheers once again!
Righto M J R, and here’s hopin we can all keep a cheery attitude through it all.
On another note, I thought Legal Insurrection did a fine job of explaining why and how the new welfare class is just making a rational decision since they will choose not to earn another dollar rather than lose more than a dollar of benefits.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/11/100-plus-taxation-key-to-permanent-dem-majority/
Why would a bird ever leave the nest if it were provided food all the time? But it would really cease to be a bird, wouldn’t it?
“Conservatives in power have never been – and can never be – as anti-government as they are in a campaign.”
This stems from the fact that anyone who runs for office believes in the efficacy of government. The real revolutionaries do not seek to represent a district in the House.
That is also the source of a serious problem in instituting objective reform, especially in a system where people are coming to understand they can vote themselves pay raises. How do you convince the right people–those actually interested in dismantling the beast or at least the beastly-er portions–to run?
Here’s one way to keep the people actually and fiscally empowered: Don’t pay for gov’t spending by inflation. I was looking at a site where it showed a glazed donut was purchasable with food stamps, but the thing that caught me was the glazed donut was 99 cents. A simple glazed donut. 99 cents.
Curtis (8:52 pm),
Clicked yer link — good stuff. It strikes me as pretty sound analysis.
I share what I perceive as your dismay at where we’re all headed, believe me.
Curtis (9:14 pm),
Am I cuckoo, or should we (society) strictly limit what can be purchased with food stamps? We’re giving the (coerced) charity, our motive is to keep down-and-out folks nourished, hey, okay, let’s-all do that. But no friggin’ doughnuts!!! Just decent food that will keep a guy/gal afloat until s/he can fend for him/herslef again.
“People say I’m a dreamer,
But I’m not the only one . . .”
— — —
G’night fer now . . . (gettin’ late in my time zone on my present work schedule) . . .
neo, I believe the quote you’re looking for is this one, from the estimable Alexis de Tocqueville:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Ten of the fifteen richest counties in America are located adjacent to Washington… Curtis’s example of the 99 cent glazed donut is an apt example of what is on the long-term horizon for everyone but the government associated elite if the Democrats aren’t effectively challenged. Taxes combined with centrally planned inflation (ie. current administration energy policy) will degrade the masses until they are barely more than struggling kulaks.
The deficits and borrowed money have been out of reality for too long, the only way it can all be handled without a violent crisis is via deliberate inflation. The entitlements and “free stuff” will have ended up just being political party sucker bait for the lower-middle and below classes. The Democratic Party, with the indispensable assistance of some RINO friends, has become probably the most successful racketeering organization in the history of mankind….
http://www.businessinsider.com/ (where-the-one-percent-live-the-15-richest-counties-in-america)
Do conservatives also believe that rights originate from their government?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/13/the-audacity-of-power-president-obama-vs-the-catholic-church/
Can it really be only one week since the mask came off? For all those who fear a second Obama term, the Rubicon was crossed, was crossed one week ago.
The best we can hope for at this point is an anti big government leader who will simply begin the long march to a reasonable sized federal government.
All it takes is a visit to Walmart on a busy Saturday to understand how ill equipped the average American is to deal with a society of pulling their own weight and then some.
We have never had a shrinking government unless you count in the “peace dividend” after the cold war, which we quickly ate up.
Shrinking government is a fantasy. I’d just like to keep government from continuing to grow.
While it would seem that Republicans would be in the best position to do that, I’ve never seen them be able to contain themselves, either.
For me, I’ll go with divided government anyday. A strong, foreign policy executive and a congress of the opposite party. Which party in which branch? That would depend on the nature of the Supreme Court at the time, which is why it really doesn’t matter to me now – the old and dying justices are all liberals anyway.
Daniel – Divided government is fine when things are at least moderately under control. At this point as standing legislation kicks in over the next 4 or so years things are going to get a lot worse very quickly. At this point we need to elect as many small government conservatives as possible (yes they exist), and place the entire government in Republican hands. Then we need to sit on them hard to actually undo some of the damage and pass some actual reforms and cuts. I have no doubt that in the breach at times they will falter, but if we can get enough done we can turn from the brink.
It took us 70 years (more or less) to get here, it’s going to take us a while to get back. BTW – Getting back means rebuilding the culture of independence. It means getting local control back in out schools and ending the lock that unions have on education. It means restoring equality before the law. It means (eventually) balancing budgets and restoring the 10th amendment. It means term limits on congressmen and returning the selection of Senators to state legislatures, who can remove a sitting Senator by super majority vote.
Figure at least two perhaps three generations of erratic and slow movement back to a real constitutional republic. I know it seems impossible, but it can be done. The next tiny step in the right direction comes in November, but there will be many many more ugly battles before the nation is restored.
Curtis: – Hewitt has been in the tank for Romney since the beginning of this election cycle. Do not expect unbiased analysis from him.
@uncleFred
Speaking of schools, have you been following the “Common Core” presentations? They seem like one step closer to a nice, convenient Federally controlled education system, all in the name of “doing it for the children”.
Curtis Says:
February 20th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Here’s one way to keep the people actually and fiscally empowered: Don’t pay for gov’t spending by inflation. I was looking at a site where it showed a glazed donut was purchasable with food stamps, but the thing that caught me was the glazed donut was 99 cents. A simple glazed donut. 99 cents.”
An acquaintance of mine ran a blog on which he occasionally linked to the infamous Ms Amanda Marcotte; usually as an example of a paradigm case of vulgar leftist lunacy run amok.
Following one of the links, I came across this classic piece of exposition; wherein Amanda reasons her way to the inevitable conclusion that it’s not their fault, it’s yours.
“Poverty, theoretically, should not make you the marionette of others’ social expectations. High-calorie, low-nutrient food is insanely cheap.”
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/tiny_tim_said_mother_stop_savoring_that_gruel_before_someone_thinks_were_no
The author of that bit is the same one who posted this penetrating observation: “Of course, there’s lots of ways to get sick that have nothing to do with where your apples came from. The recent death of Ted Kennedy, who got brain cancer and didn’t die from any kind of abuse of his body, should be a somber enough reminder of that.”
” and didn’t die from any kind of abuse of his body …”
Well, she may know that a life spent as a fat, morally dissolute drunk, contributed nothing to his ultimate condition and demise, and she may be right. But as of this moment, I would suggest that the jury is still out on that one.
uncleFred, it looks like Drudge is in the tank too for Romney. I notice there’s a breathless expose that Santorum, as a fundamental Catholic, actually believes in his religion.
The conservative pundit onslaught against Newt did not really help Romney. It will be even worse for Romney if they duplicate such attack against Santorum. Santorum. Doesn’t that have a Latin feel to it. Santorum unites fundamental Catholics and Evangelicals, both of whom are not going to respond with anything but secret pleasure to Santorum’s charge that there is a Satan and that he is leading the charge against America’s institutions. It might spell doom in the general, but in the primary, it probably only increases the dedicated support Santorum has.