Here’s a request to any pollsters out there: One bit of data
that would be interesting to see is the percentage of the vaunted
undecided vote that favors a much smaller federal government. The
reasons neither John Kerry nor George W. Bush stir the passions of
libertarian-leaning voters are numerous and familiar, and the dilemma this
election poses for this voting bloc has stimulated considerable
debate.
But after the hanging chads are cleared, it’s going to be either
the Bush Republicans or the Kerry Democrats who are declared the
victors. Neither is ideal, but which would allow for the least
government growth?
Many principled opponents of big government take the
counterintuitive position that it would be Kerry, assuming
Republicans remained in control of Congress. In a political climate
that finds both parties clamoring for new laws, regulations, and
budget-busting spending programs, the argument is that placing
different parties in control of the executive and legislative
branches can curb the worst excesses of each side.
The Cato Institute’s William
Niskanen has found that since the Eisenhower administration,
divided government has usually meant slower federal spending
growth. Back in the heady days of the Dean campaign,
Reason magazine’s Julian Sanchez counseled readers to put their faith in checks and
balances above their fear of liberal Democrats: “Because
libertarians shouldn’t be distracted by what policies the
president, deep down, really wants. They should care about what he
can get.”
Whenever Democrats enter the White House, congressional
Republicans suddenly rediscover their inner minarchist. Bill
Clinton’s coexistence with a GOP Congress was a case study in how
divided government can thwart statists’ designs. This arrangement
produced the first balanced budget in almost 30 years and
eventually record surpluses. Real nondefense spending increased at
a lower annual rate under Clinton than during Bush’s first
term.
LEAVE IT TO THE Economist to throw cold water on the
gridlock versus big government scenario. The Lexington column of
October 23 quotes wonks from Harvard and the Brookings Institution
who suggest there was more to the relative fiscal responsibility of
the mid-to-late 1990s than divided government. The post-Cold War
peace dividend, Ross Perot and sound budget-control legislation
were all given credit for the turn away from deficit spending, with
Brookings’ Sarah Binder arguing that deficit figures since World
War II don’t support the relationship between divided government
and budgetary discipline.
Binder’s criteria for evaluating the impact of divided
government is different from Niskanen’s and probably less relevant
if you believe in limiting government as a pro-liberty end in
itself rather than simply to ensure that the books are balanced.
But there are other reasons to note that the stars were aligned for
economic conservatives during the Clinton years in ways that are
not likely to be replicated during a Kerry administration.
Almost a decade ago, Congress was dominated by Newt Gingrich’s
Republican “revolutionaries.” Back then, instead of authorizing
massive new prescription-drug programs the GOP majority
courageously — and at a high political price in the next round of
congressional elections — tried to limit the growth of Medicare
spending. (The Republicans had earlier sunk Clinton’s health plan
and pared back his tax increase as an aggressive minority.) Famed
tax collector for the welfare state Bob Dole had to burnish his
small-government credentials in order to run for the GOP
presidential nomination in 1996 against the likes of Phil Gramm, a
year when even Arlen Specter presented himself as a flat-taxer and
government-cutter. As Anne Applebaum recently pointed out in the Washington
Post, it all seems so distant now. This is a different
Republican Congress than Newt’s 104th.
We also had in Bill Clinton a Democrat who understood that he
needed to make his party safe for the middle class again, a
Democratic Leadership Council veteran who wanted to be anti-deficit
and pro-business. His treasury secretaries, such as Lloyd Bentsen
and Robert Rubin, were among the least liberal members of his
Cabinet and he was willing to sign things like welfare reform and
recite the right slogans ending the era of big government. He was
in many respects a different kind of Democrat than Kerry.
FINALLY, GRIDLOCK CAN BE as effective at stymieing measures that
limit government as those that expand it. This was evident in the
1995 Medicare reforms and other spending cuts, as well as several
large tax-cut packages prior to 2001. There are far fewer
comparable proposals on the table today, but expanded medical
savings accounts and free-market reform of Social Security at least
have the potential to improve prospects for limiting government
later. And some of the Bush tax cuts — including the controversial
reduction in the top marginal income tax rate — are still
scheduled to expire. With divided government, Congress would have
to pass legislation extending them by a big enough margin to
override a President Kerry’s veto.
Of course, with politicians advocating government restraint in
short supply and the next four years’ political conditions
uncertain, arguments on both sides of this debate amount to
inconclusive speculation. We are fortunate that the Framers built
as many firm checks on the political class into the Constitution as
they did. But there’s no substitute for elected officials actually
inclined to respect them.
