Oops… Wrong Turn
Perhaps it’s time for American conservatives to start listening (again) to William F. Buckley?
A great article at CNN.com: Where the right went wrong.
Fifty years ago, when a 29-year-old Yale graduate named William F. Buckley Jr. funded National Review magazine, conservatism was a small insurgency, fighting the dominant tide of liberalism that had governed the United States for a quarter century.Today, the right is politically dominant. The president is an avowed conservative; so are the vast majority of Republicans who control the Congress. The courts have moved to the right; conservative voices are prominent in the media; and three Americans call themselves conservative for every two who say they are liberal.
Yet now, at what should be the floodtide of conservative power, many on the right are expressing open, even passionate disagreement with what has been done in their name. (Watch what’s angered the right — 1:34 )
“I believe that as a movement we have veered off course into the dangerous and uncharted waters of big government Republicanism,” said Mike Pence, a three-term representative from Indiana.
[...]
The discontent includes the sharp growth in government spending — including the kind of domestic spending conservatives have long deplored — to the growth of “pork-barrel” projects once seen as an emblem of how big government politicians hold power.“They have increased the amount of government spending by a degree that no Democrat would ever dream of getting away with,” said columnist Andrew Sullivan.
Be sure to watch the video and check out CNN’s Broken Government website.
In the video one sees Reagan define the principal conservative value (regarding economics). One I completely agree with: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
Look at the facts. Or these (h/t Mikkel). That says it all, doesn’t it.
In the comment section of the thread I link to above, I left this comment:
Once Joe and I were e-mailing each other about this [fiscal conservatism, small government] and I wrote something like “what I don’t understand is how conservative Americans can be disappointed in Bush et al. when they didn’t vote for a (real) conservative in the first place. Bush is not a conservative, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor… How the heck could one expect them to implement conservative policies?”
This summarizes my view on this best. Conservative Republicans in Senate have probably abandoned their principles as to be able to ‘win’: partisan politics, unity was all that mattered for a long time. They abandoned their conservative principles and they will most likely pay for it within a few weeks. More importantly for Americans, though: the US as a whole will pay for it. Literally.
As some kind of strange joke, the GOP seems to have just one thing left: a pitiful attempt to rally the conservative base by some good old-fashioned gay bashing. Whatever happened to the conservatism Barry Goldwater represented? Where has it gone?
Whatever happened with conservatives a la Buckley? Don’t they have any political power / influence?
Here is a nice book. I suggest my conservative cousins in America read it.
24 Responses to “Oops… Wrong Turn”
Michael, great post. You’ve addressed one of the major reasons many moderates, including myself, have been running away from Republicans as quickly as possible. Quite simply, traditional conservatism is now hard to find in the Republican party. The party no longer stands for fiscal responsibility and limited government. It no longer stands for state rights and individual rights. It is now all about fiscal irresponsibility and big government at levels that the Democratic party could never get away with and would probably never even consider trying to get away with and intruding into the private lives of everyone who wants to live in a way that contrasts with the views of the religious right.
I appreciate traditional conservatism. I agree strongly with the concepts of fiscal responsibility and government only stepping in where necessary. I agree with state rights and individual rights. Unfortunately, the Republican party no longer stands for these things. In fact, in some ways, it seems like the Democratic party holds more true to these ideals than the Republican party. Is it possible that the current Democratic party better represents traditional conservatism than the current Republican party? This is a question I’ve been asking myself recently. In the ways that matter to me most, my answer – for better or worse – has been yes.
Ryan thank you.
Want my answer?
Both don’t.
I agree that neither is truly conservative. However, if we’re going to look at things as a continuum and ask who is closer to conservative ideals, I actually feel that the Democrats are closer right now as a whole. I don’t know how to define the Republicans. They seem to be anti-conservative, anti-liberal, and anti-moderate all at the same time.
I have some difficulty with that. You should not just look at the leading politicians, but also at the ones who vote for them: the ‘grass roots’ or something.
But I understand your point and to a degree I can agree with it.
As a voter, I want to look at the ones who will set and vote on policy. On the Democratic side, the majority of those people have been saying the right things (concern about the defecit and rampant spending, for example) but have had little, if any, opportunity to act on their words in a meaningful way. On the Republican side, they have been part of the problem. I’m simply saying I think it’s time to give the Democrats a chance to act as they speak. If they don’t, then hopefully the Republican party will remake itself in the next two years. If they do, then maybe their actions will earn votes again in the future.
As a voter, why should I be more concerned (or even as concerned) about other voters than who I am going to vote for? The one I’m going to vote for is the one who will be in the position to set policy. I don’t care what the “grass roots” says, I care about what those with the actual power say and do. Besides, if I base my opinion on the “grass roots”, my best option is to move to another country as quickly as possible because the “grass roots” on both sides is nuts.
I’m quite skeptical of putting people in charge of government who don’t think it can work. Seems to be a self-fulfilling prophocey. I could agree more with such sentiment in Europe, where the government is something like 3 times as large as here (as a % of GDPs). While it is quite difficult to make a government run well, I’d rather have a nieve idealist who thinks government can be both effective and efficient than a sour skeptic who won’t try to change the system to make it work better.
Exactly
Kevin, I’m surprised. that’s quite a false reasoning. conservatives don’t say that the govenrment cannot do anything, conservatives say that one of the main problems is that the government does too much.
Michael: In America, the government does not run things. Corporations do.
I’ve worked in both sectors, and government is wasteful, corrupt, and incompetent.
BUT, corporations are FAR worse, and the bigger they are the more corrupt and wasteful.
Reagan was a hand puppet, and never had an original idea. His vaunted letters are just refried and failed ideas from earlier thinkers.
The real problem is that no voters really want REAL CHANGE.
Moderation comes from mediating POVs. The more POVs the more moderate and successful a gov’t. With just two axes- R &D, you get wild swings. Put ten or twelve and you’ll have sane gov’t where no one gets all they want, but all get more than they’re getting now.
I think its just as useless to demonize government as it is to demonize corporations-the fact is we depend on both to function well. The problem for proponents of good government, is that many will point to the mismanagement and waste we have had for the last 6 years and say—that’s what happens when the government gets too big. Well, I agree that the government has gotten too big, but not with the premise that small government is necessarily a good end in and of itself. I believe that government can be used to promote fairness and equality, and can keep us safe from unscrupulous businesses of all kinds. I believe you should be able to count on your government in times of disaster- which is not to say that you shouldn’t try as much as possible to take care of yourself-just that there are some who can’t.
No, MvdG, in this country conservatives say things like the quote you like from Reagan. When you make a broad assertion like “government is the problem” then it is a tiny step that conservatives in this country have taken to government should do nothing but law, military and disaster preparedness. In today’s world that simplistic attitude doesn’t work. People who agree with that quote do not try to make government work better here, they dismantle government and farm the functions out to private businesses. It doesn’t matter if it works better or if money is saved. Ideology is all. Government is the problem.
I’ve been watching this interesting and well done series and I thought tonight’s installment was the best so far. There are several factors at play in the gop.
The administration and congress are not really conservatives. I call them fringe reactionaries.
They are a totally different breed and there is no name for them. neocons isn’t it because they are a different group (though are part of the problem)
They have also allowed themselves to be caught up in the childish blaming, name calling, ect. instead of being grownups and real legislators
They are controlled by the fundies and evans and wallow in the social agenda of these groups.
I believe Tom Delay more than anyone is responsible for taking the statesmanship out of it and turning the congress into what is literally a criminal enterprise. Congress is just the front for the texas mafia’s illegal activities.
The trouble with conservatism is that they have to say “no� to the governed. “No� to social programs, “no� to deficit spending, “no� to earmarks, “no’ to farm subsidies. The idea of smaller government was great when the Conservatives were in the minority, but when they gained power they quickly discovered how handing out money got you reelected. For social conservatives having power meant that you could also legislate morality. Government went from being the problem to being the “solution’ to staying in power. Conservatism will always struggle with this dilemma, once you gain power you have to keep it but in order to keep it you have to go against the impulse to use your position to buy constituencies.
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O’Rourke
I’d just like to point that out, in reference particularly to the thinking behind the Reagan quote.
grognard,
Spot on analysis. I would add that constituencies that elect conservatives are also usually disingenuous; they want small government for everyone else, but of course they don’t really expect that the leaders they elect will cut the budget for their pet program or pork project.
CS, yes that is another problem ,cut “their program� not mine. That is why I liked the idea of spending restraints the does not allow government to get larger. Not being able to grow government larger means if you wanted money for your plan you had to take it from someone else, or wonder of wonders, make government more efficient so that there was more money to spend on projects. The Republicans abandoned this restraint along with fiscal responsibility when Bush was elected and it is my feeling that the only way to get them back on course will be to put them in time out, that will really be true if the Democrats reduce deficit spending.
Mikey:
You’re exactly right, government is the problem not the solution. You take states like Alabama and Misssissippi with less government and look how much richer theyy are than places like New York and California. Same as in Europe, a couple hundred years ago you guys were so well off, now look at you.
That’s why I admire you for paying every penny of your education and walkng through mud rather than use government subsidized roads.
Mikey:
To prove your point futher the states that oppose big government and vote Republican almost all get a lot more from the federal government than they pay in. But states like California get 75 cents for every buck they pay to Washington. This proves that opposing big government is a winning proposition.
VWCat: good comment.
Dittohead; you don’t really expect me to respond to your comments do you? “mikey”? heh.
It’s relevant because the government is able to limit ones rights tremendously. Also, the more the government interfenes, the less the market can be healthy.
Cheap isn’t necessarily the best, despite what you might think of it.
Jim S,
I think that’s a bit of a strawman, because the philosophy of privatizing everything is more of a libertarian one than a conservative Republican one. So, I guess I’ll grant you that some conservatives want absolute minimalist government but many (I’d say most) conservatives are well aware that the government should provide some functions other than defense and law enforcement. That those are central and most vital functions of the govt (esp of the federal govt in terms of defense) is a tenet of conservatism, but that doesn’t mean that we want to restrict it to only those functions. In fact I’d say that this is why spending is so out of control, because many people want it both ways (military and social programs)
You can certainly find people who want to slash and cut most government programs and turn them over to the private sector, just as you can find liberals who are pretty close to advocating socialism. Personally I feel we should look at each problem on a case by case basis and evalute whether government can provide the remedy or whether the private sector can do it better. There shouldn’t be a default to one or the other, and the parties do us a disservice by trying to create a false dichotomy that it has to be all government solutions or all privatization.
Exactemundo and I quite agree with this:
I would have completely agreed if you would have worded it like “I think that you’re creating a strawman and that you are simplifying the views of conservatives in a way that’s comparable to calling every American liberal a diehard commie”.
It’s ridiculous.
Well, I was going for a more subtle approach, but yours works too, MvdG
OMG Dick Cheney is really a Libertarian. DC started a move to privative the MILITARY and HALLIBURTON rewarded him with the CEO job. As CEO he acquired a company with large asbestos liabilities. This caused big problems at Haliburton, yet he wasn’t fired. The privatization thing is a way to reward your cronies!!!!
Rudi,
No one has said that Cheney is a Libertarian, nor were we talking about anyone in this administration. Jim S was making a generalization about conservatives’ views of the functions of government and I criticized his statement because it was an example of a very narrow, extreme slice of a philosophy on the conservative spectrum but doesn’t represent the mainstream of what conservative voters believe.