The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Federalist Fred

9.13.07 @ 12:01AM

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Re: Michael Tanner's At Last a Small-Government Conservative?:

How can you almost completely leave Ron Paul out of the picture, when he is the one most geared towards putting government back into its limited place? I know he's against the war and such, but an imperialist agenda also qualifies as big government spending, as well. I think it's very inaccurate to portray Fred Thompson as the only Republican federalist out there.
-- Paul Melnyk

Michael Tanner's comparison of Fred Thompson to the other candidates is based only on what Candidate Thompson has said, or what he supported as 1% of the Senate. A look at what he has actually done would also be helpful.

Senators do not "do things." They make laws that force other people to "do things." Before his eight years in the Senate, Thompson spent 20 years as a lobbyist; he was not a lobbyist for smaller government. His mission was to grab the biggest piece of government pie he could.

It is true that the law enforcement agencies run by Thompson have never committed any abuses, because he has never run a law enforcement agency. The health insurance structure adopted by the state he governed cannot be compared to Hillarycare, because he has never governed. The companies he has managed have never had a production shortfall, because he has never been engaged in production.

If you were a large shareholder of a major public corporation, would you want Fred Thompson to be its CEO? Of course not. No responsible board of directors of a huge enterprise would hire a CEO that had never been in an executive position. It would be a mistake for us to hire the chief executive of the most important enterprise on Earth, the United States, based only on his recitation of talking points crafted to please a small government audience.
-- Tom Dykers
Goochland, Virginia

The premise of Mr. Tanner's column is incorrect.

He states "Republicans have been increasingly split between traditional small-government conservatives in the Reagan and Goldwater molds and a new breed of big-government conservatives who believe in using an activist government to achieve conservative ends -- even if it means increasing the size, cost, and power of government in the process."

By definition, big-government types are not conservatives. As soon as you become a big-government "anything," you are no longer a conservative. True conservatives know that the mantle of "small-government" starts with the 17 specifically enumerated Congressional powers permitted by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, and ends with the 10th Amendment.

It remains to be seen whether Fred has the same outlook. His previous votes on NCLB and McCain-Feingold campaign finance means that the jury is still out on his supposed small-government conservatism. Lots of convincing needs to happen on the stump -- maybe another Contract with America is in his immediate future. If only we could be so graced which such a document.

By the way, there is one more incorrect premise in the column. Being a hawk on national security is a conservative position -- almost half of those previously discussed enumerated powers deal with the subject. In fact, if I were king for the day, it would be the only issue funded by the taxpayer at the federal level (besides the courts). Everything else would be a state responsibility.

Long live Federalism.
-- Owen H. Carneal

We already have the genuine article, Ron Paul, running for the Republican nomination. Why should we turn toward a handpicked false alternative? Your article's premise of empire-building and the big-government war machine is right on. Thompson seems to be only echoing the "let's go beat up on the rest of the world" moniker of the other non-Paul candidates. Do you hear Thompson challenging the power of the IRS or the privately-owned Federal Reserve money machine. No, and you won't hear him address these issues.

The growing issue of the war in the Middle East will turn from the question of its morality on its face to "How can our children and grandchildren afford the wars?" and pay for their parents retirement through Social Security? This is why Paul's candidacy resonates so well with younger people. I'm 60 and it resonates with me. Paul's strength is grassroots and currently below the media radar (but this seems to be changing rapidly). Thompson's strength is an embarrassed Republican Party conservative hierarchy (especially in southern states) who knows that Rudy McRomney is a dead ticket at the gate. Why? It won't fail because conservative Republicans and Independents will vote for the Democratic socialist ticket. They will "stay home" on the presidential election or vote Republican for local and state candidates only.
--- Ken Stanford
Charlotte, North Carolina

Michael Tanner's article, "At Last a Small-Government Conservative?" is an embarrassment to your publication, and I think the worse of your publication for having printed it.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Global Warming, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, NATO, Socialism, Conservatism, Immigration, Oil