- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Issues
- Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Magazine Archives
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
The Public Policy
The Failure of Big Government Conservatism
How did the Republicans fall so fast, so completely?
In an article published on the morning of election day, "Will GOP Learn from This?" Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, correctly predicted that Republicans were heading straight for a full-scale electoral wreckage: "The Republican Party is on the verge of its second consecutive election debacle. In two years, the GOP will likely have lost the presidency, more than a dozen Senate seats, and more than 50 seats in the House --- if it's lucky. Republicans will have gone from controlling every arm of government to controlling none."
How'd it happen? Was it that the stingy Republicans didn't promise enough free tuition, didn't promise to send free money (labeled as a tax cut) to everyone who doesn't pay any federal income taxes? Were Republicans defeated because they allowed Obama to outbid them on giveaways? Won't Santa Claus always pull more votes than Scrooge?
Republicans, in this view, won't get back on track until they up the ante and start promising free books to go along with the free tuition. At one of Obama's college rallies in which he was listing the problems he'd eliminate with a new trillion in government spending, a girl yelled "expensive textbooks" as her particular dilemma to be solved by some spreading of the wealth. "That too," replied Obama.
Hence, regarding how the GOP can resurrect itself, there are those who are already arguing that Republicans can only beat big government liberalism by way of big government conservatism.
"On the other side of this debate are those who believe that Republicans lost precisely because they abandoned their principles and commitment to limited government," writes Tanner. "Those arguing for a return to smaller government say that after eight years of a Bush administration that increased federal spending faster than any president since Lyndon Johnson, created the first new entitlement program in 40 years, increased federal control over education, and added 7,000 pages of new regulations to the Federal Register, Republicans had lost the ability to differentiate themselves from Democrats."
Continues Tanner: "These Republicans believe that America is essentially still a conservative nation. They point to polls showing that, even in the midst of an economic meltdown and a Democratic landslide, voters by a 2-1 margin continue to identify themselves as conservatives rather than liberals. They therefore want the Republican Party to return to its Reagan-Goldwater roots of support for smaller government and less spending."
In last Tuesday's election, CNN reported that exit polls showed that "43 percent of those surveyed believe that government is doing too much."
A Zogby poll in the 2006 Congressional elections found that 59 percent of voters described themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" --- a basically libertarian position in the sense that it's saying that government is simultaneously overbearing in both what it takes out of our wallets and how much it seeks to control our behavior.
The problem for Republicans is that they've lost their claim to be fiscally conservative. On the day President George W. Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion, the total accumulation of 232 years. In September, the Treasury Department reported that the debt had nearly doubled to $9.849 trillion (not counting the Wall Street bailouts).
That's a 50-year high, measuring debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and the biggest increase in debt under any president in U.S. history.
On the Democratic side, the latest example of massive fiscal irrationality was the party's attempt to deliver "affordable housing" by way of forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, thereby creating the mortgage crisis that directly contributed to the current financial meltdown.
With both parties failing the test when it comes to fiscal responsibility, why wouldn't voters who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal go with the party that's socially liberal?
The comeback strategy? The winning ticket isn't big government,
whether in the form of fiscal liberalism or social illiberalism.
"The era of big government is over," Bill Clinton declared in his
State of the Union Address on January 23, 1996, reacting to the
public's opposition to his wife's 1993 overreach on health care
and the subsequent 1994 midterm elections in which Republicans
took control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate
for the first time in 40 years.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Overlords of World War II
- Cowards on Race
- Will the Next Press Be Capitalist?
Iran in Turmoil
Is the Obama administration doing a good job handling the aftermath of the election in Iran?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
John M| 11.11.08 @ 9:14AM
Rick Megahan| 11.11.08 @ 9:17AM
It is true that George W. Bush signed on to Medicare drugs, did not veto enough pork-laden bills and dropped Social Security reform.
Is there anyone here though who objects to paying for homeland security and disaster (re:Katrina, 9/11) relief?
It would be interesting to read an analysis of how these events, not discretionary and not faced by other presidents, offset the notion that this administration was unusually profligate in expanding government.
Thomas| 11.11.08 @ 11:32AM
Mr. Rules is correct in his opening statement "The Republicans lost because the party has nothing to offer to an America in the 21st Century", but not for the reasons he listed.
In this election, the Democrat Barack Obama, ran to the right of John McCain. That is correct, folks. Barack Obama promised bigger tax cuts that John McCain. He refused to respond to any of the Republican demands for answers about what his social plans would cost and how he could possibly pay for them.
As for the ultra-conservative elite forcing John McCain to pick Sarah Palin, what? In the first place, there is no ultra-conservative, or even conservative elite. Second, why would any conservative elite choose an unknown Governor from Alaska with its massive 3 electoral votes. Aren't there any better know conservatives from say, California, New York, Ohio, Florida, ad nauseum?
Being odl and wrinkly, like Dr, Right, I will adstain from any comment on that portion of Mr. Rules' post.
But, Tom Paine, now. There is a man I can identify with. He is young and the young are confident that they can re-make the world into their chosen image. The young believe in "fairness". So much so that they resort to solutions that are decidedly unfair to enforce their idea of fairness. The young are always looking forward, which is good, as that is how the species progresses. But most fail to keep one eye on the rearview mirror. For knowing where we have been makes it easier to avoid the problems on the road to where we are going. No, Mr. Paine, if he continues to progress in his education, will very likely become a wrinkly old conservative as I did.
Why? Because as you grow older, you learn that there are a lot of people whose overriding ambition in life is to limit your freedom. The more that they can limit it, the more secure they become. What you learn, is that those that seek to rule are dangerous and must be closely watched.
You learn that people only progress when they are, not only allowed, but encouraged to make mistakes. You learn that people are happiest when they know that THEY have accomplished something and responsible for their own success. And you learn that people grow and develop best in a climate that embodies the greatest freedom and liberty.
Dr, Right, and most of the others here, are only attempting to safeguard that. Most of us do not post to liberal boards, like the Daily Kos [you know the one where posters have constantly called for the death of President Bush, Dick Caney, Karl Rove and everyone else who disagrees with them]. We do not inflict our views on those with no desire for them.
Everyone here appreciates reasoned arguments. But some people are a bit more fervent in their posts. We understand and accept that.
Oh, by the way. If an Independent is drawn to a party, then he is not an independent.
Think about it.
boozebuster| 11.11.08 @ 11:34AM
Obama Nation....Wow..I guess you told them republican hicks a thing or two...its that kind of blanket generalizations that will renew the fire of conservatism in all americans. Your grandiosity is showing.
Obama Rulz| 11.11.08 @ 1:14PM
The title of this essay should have been "The Failure of Big Government Fascism."
RedBloodedAmericanGirl| 11.11.08 @ 1:34PM
Obama Rules: what a tirade! Of course the young and immigrants are registering Democrat; EVERYONE who wants a freebie registers with the party that promises to give them everything for free. They are all still living in la-la-land, where they believe that the government actually solves problems, and that they are poor not because they are lazy and pessimistic, but because someone else is rich. That kind of resentment is really productive . . . WAAaaaa! Welcome to Obama Nation, where the government promises to wipe your sniveling nose for you.
And the ones who end up having to pay for all this nonsense generally vote Republican. Only, McCain and Co. were not offering anything different. Bush and his ilk of GOP'ers are as pro big-government as any Democrats I have ever witnessed--including the current bailout, which will prove to be a complete disaster for the future of this country. All of these lifelong politicians still believe that the government can actually fix problems, despite decades of expensive failures. Until the GOP articulates a vision of smaller government, more liberty, and fiscal responsibility, then the GOP is doomed. This is not rocket science, and the GOP had better start listening to real Americans, instead of their spineless advisors. McCain sounded like "me, too" in this election. What the GOP needs to learn is that McCain did as well as he did DESPITE his poor campaigning precisely because those of us who see a better future for America--one in which we, and NOT the government, get to decide our own fates--chose the lesser of two evils in McCain.
Josh F| 11.11.08 @ 2:28PM
It's the failure of "compassionate conservatism". I've been waiting for some libertarian sensibility to return to the GOP for eight long years. After witnessing my favorite Republican, John McCain, kowtow to the Bible-thumping right -- it is apparent I have another four years to wait ... at least. Can someone explain to me how the party of smaller government wants to micromanage what is taught in public schools, meddle in the marital affairs of its citizens, impose laws restricting the freedom people have over their own uteruses, continue to wage an impractical war on drugs, and another one of indeterminate length on terror, etc.?
Joe| 11.11.08 @ 3:20PM
maybe we'll get a competent government this time
Thomas| 11.11.08 @ 4:23PM
Josh,
Let me answer your questions. I too have longed for the GOP to show a more libertarian bent, for the last 50 years. But if you expected it from John McCain, you were in for a rude awakening. Libertarian he is not.
Now about the "party of smaller government". While Conservative Republicans want smaller government, the current Republican leadership does not. President Bush has always been a liberal moderate on social issues and No Child Left Behind was his baby [backed by the Democrats], not the Conservatives. And, at the local level, it is liberals who set school agendas, not conservatives. The conservatives merely end up spending an inordinate amount of time combating liberal agendas in the schools.
Meddling in the marital affairs of its citizens. Seems to me that both the Republicans and the Democrats vote overwhelmingly to restrict marriage to a union of a man and a woman.
Impose laws restricting the freedom people have over their own uterus. There are no laws restricting what a woman does with her own uterus. However, most Conservatives believe that human life begins at conception. So if a mother takes steps to harm a child, whether before or after delivery, then that should be regulated because her decision impacts another human life. But very few women opt to have their wombs removed, even during an abortion. So are you referring to a woman's freedom to use her womb as she pleases or to legally dispose of an inconvenient child?
War on drugs? No problem. If a majority of people want to legalize drugs, have them change the laws.
War on terror. What part of the reason for the huge vacant lot on the south end of Manhattan Island is unclear to you? Just as a point of information, all wars are of indeterminate length until they are over. A war is not an athletic contest with a clock that signals the end of the game.
Any more silly questions I can help you with?
DJ| 11.11.08 @ 4:40PM
Is there anyone here though who objects to paying for homeland security and disaster (re:Katrina, 9/11) relief? >>
Yeah, ME !
I object to the government STEALING my money to support these things. If I want to help disaster victims I will, and did send a check to the red cross. If the government wasn't stealing my money I could have gave them more. The red cross gets a much higher percentage of your money to people who really need it then government could ever hope to do.
We were just fine before the department of homeland security started eavsdropping on us. We had one attack on our soil in 200 years and we all rush to trade our privacy rights for "security".
The MILITARY is charged with our defense. The military despite what we've been using it for is not a tool in which to get foreign governments to dance to our tune. It is there for our defense we don't need another bureuacracy performing the job that another should already be doing. Perhaps if our military personell weren't spread all over Japan, Korea, Germany and Cuba they would have been able to find out what was going on under our noses.
Red Blooded American Girl| 11.11.08 @ 4:54PM
Obama Rules: Oh, please. Yes, I made a generalized statement about immigrants, but so did you. Don't act like every last man of them work like dogs, or that they are all working legit--and not cash under the table (no taxes, no FICA). Interesting that you did not choose to dispute the primary point I stated in that sentence about the attraction of the Democratic party.
As for immigration: if immigrants are willing to work in this country, more power to them. But we have a messed up system in which the government makes it harder for immigrants to get a job, and easier for them to get welfare. Take Prop 187 in California some years ago, which was attacked for being racist. But the opponents never pointed out the obvious: if an immigrant wants a job, an employer requires an I-9, but if you want free welfare, education, and medical care, no questions asked. Sounds pretty messed up to me.
DJ| 11.11.08 @ 4:57PM
Josh F | 11.11.08 @ 1:28PM
It's the failure of "compassionate conservatism". I've been waiting for some libertarian sensibility to return to the GOP for eight long years. After witnessing my favorite Republican, John McCain, kowtow to the Bible-thumping right -- it is apparent I have another four years to wait ... at least. Can someone explain to me how the party of smaller government wants to micromanage what is taught in public schools, meddle in the marital affairs of its citizens, impose laws restricting the freedom people have over their own uteruses, continue to wage an impractical war on drugs, and another one of indeterminate length on terror, etc.?
>>
I have to agree with another poster who said if you expected libertarianism from John "Bailout" McCain you were looking at the wrong guy.
The republican party had a chance to go the libertarian route with Ron Paul, they chose to belittle him instead of listen to what he had to say. All they saw was he was against the war in Iraq, they didn't listen to WHY he was against the war in Iraq. They got their marching orders from the neocon elite like Limbaugh and Hannity and convinced themselves that Mitt "Universal Health Care" Romney was a real conservative.
I have been saying for years that the religious right will be the downfall of the republican party and it appears I may be correct.
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the majority of Americans see there is a problem with forcing your ideology on others.
Thomas| 11.11.08 @ 5:01PM
DJ,
A question if I may?
What ideology is the religious right forcing on others?
DJ| 11.11.08 @ 5:21PM
Thomas :
They are trying to force what they proclaim are Christian ideals upon people who may or may not adhere to the Christian religion.
They try to force their ideals through various governmental actions, such as abolishing abortion, preventing homosexuals from getting married, censoring radio and television, they force "decency" laws on us. As if decency weren't subjective. My definition of decent more than likely differs from yours, and yours more than likely differs from someone else and on and on we go.
As a libertarian I don't believe in any state sanctioned marriage but if you're going to have it for some people it's only fair to have it for everyone. If a guy wants to marry a fish that's his business and none of mine.
When a group by way of the government undertakes these sorts of actions that group is forcing their agenda upon others, robbing them of their liberty.
DJ| 11.11.08 @ 5:24PM
(no taxes, no FICA). >>
I applaud Illegal immigrants for not paying taxes, stop feeding the beast.
Red Blooded American Girl| 11.11.08 @ 5:30PM
DJ: I think you have it a bit backwards. By forcing people to adopt gay marriage, it is the gay community that is forcing their agenda on others: acceptance and approval. If you are libertarian, then be happy that you are free to do what you want. But then why ask the state to step in and give your relationship the blessing of state-sanctioned marriage and all the legal duties and obligations that go with it? You may not care about whether a guy marries a guy, but don't forget that that means they get different tax treatment and special standing in a court of law. That is not freedom, that is asking the government--that is, all of us voters--to approve of your conduct. A vote for Prop 8 was not robbing anyone of liberty, it was withholding a privilege.
DJ| 11.11.08 @ 5:46PM
By forcing people to adopt gay marriage>>
No one is being forced to adopt gay marriage, if you are not gay then you don't marry someone of the same sex. It's kind of simple really.
IF the state which is funded by taxpayers is going to sanction marriage, it is not right for them to deny a certain group of taxpayers. Preventing gay marriage is the same as Affirmative Action, it is the government giving preference to one group over another for a arbitrary reason.
Thomas| 11.11.08 @ 5:50PM
DJ,
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but "forcing" people to do things, or not do things, is what society is all about. Societies decide, in our case through representative government, to put in place certain rules [laws] so that the people in that society can live together in a modicum of peace and tranquility.
In the case of abortion, most Christians believe that life begins at conception. Therefor, aborting a human life, either within the womb or after delivery is tantamount to murder. In their minds, allowing the killing of another human life, for other than self defense or the defense of another is murder. Now this is the interesting part. In the US a mother is allowed to abort her fetus during the first 6 months of her pregnancy. Yet, in several states, courts have convicted a person who physically assaults a pregnant woman resulting in the involuntary abortion of a fetus as young as 2 1/2 months for the murder of the fetus. So is the mother killing the fetus in self defense?
Marriage is a little bit trickier to explain. But, seeing as how the Christian right does not compose anywhere near 60% of the population and that is the minimum percentage of the electorate that consistently votes for limiting marriage to the union of a man and a woman, there must be some other factor at work there.
"Decency" laws. It depends on exactly what behavior is being controlled. Every group tries to regulate some behavior that it does not agree with. This is hardly unique to Christian conservatives.
Censoring radio and television. If Christian groups are trying to do this, they are not very successful. There was a shot on a major cable network the other night graphically demonstrating the use of
sex toys.
In any society, all people give up a certain amount of personal liberty to be a member of society. If a person believes that he, or she, is being unfairly deprived of a given freedom, then that person can either convince a large enough people to get the law changed or he can leave the society. All life is a trade off and it is rarely fair.
Ms. Know| 11.15.08 @ 8:10PM
One can only hope the GOP learns and gets strong leadership, because it wasn't strong enough in the eyes of the critical mainstream media illuminati, and they voiced and aired their opinion at will.
DarQ Dawg| 11.20.08 @ 7:58AM
When have conservatives ever shrank the size of government? Name one time in history that this was the case. Government has been growing steadily ever since 1913 when Lady Liberty became the victim of a national banking gangbang rape cartel called the Federal Reserve. And Bush grew it faster than anyone else in history with six years of a "conservative" Congress. I guess the term "Reserve" was meant then in the same vein as the term "conservative." Reserve nothing and conserve even less.
There is not one "conservative" (and I say that with the same tone that they speak the word "liberal" another four letter word) that would vote to get rid of the FR except for Ron Paul. And he's not really a conservative; he's actually a strict constitutionalist. And I'll tell you why. Without the Fed, Bush would have never gotten into Iraq. Without the Fed, Bush and Co. could have never waged the most unnecessary war in modern history at a time when it became so unpopular that his approval rating plummeted so fa and fast that it had Satan complaining to God about the new hole in hell's roof. Hell... souls were escaping through it! We can't have that!
Truth is conservatives need Big Bad Government to fight the Wars that they want fought. War on Terror, War on Drugs, and whoever else needs an @$$whipping. So they can't afford to reduce the size of government in more than the liberals they detest.
Pingback| 1.31.09 @ 7:53PM
Chasing the Norm » Blog Archive » Liberals and their Government links to this page.