Political Hay
Big Government, Small Vote Totals
Tax, spend, and elect works better for Democrats than Republicans.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater carried just six states running on a platform of constitutionally limited government. If certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were not among the expansions of federal power Goldwater opposed, he likely would have lost five of those states too.
Just eight years later, however, Republican Richard Nixon was reelected to the presidency in a 49-state landslide, after embracing wage and price controls, the Environmental Protection Agency, affirmative action, and Keynesian economics. So this proves that big government is good for Republicans while small government is for losers, right?
Such an argument can only be sustained by ignoring longer-term political context. Goldwater both came from and enhanced a movement that made the Republican Party truly competitive nationally, as opposed to the permanent minority party that could only elect president when nominating a war hero or reacting to Democratic overreach. Nixon’s victory was followed by the overwhelmingly Democratic Watergate Congress after the 1974 elections — and, once designated successor Gerald Ford fell in 1976, unified Democratic control of the federal government.
Watergate — and, in Ford’s case, a poor choice of words concerning the Soviet Union’s position vis-à-vis Poland — had more to do with this than Republican big government, of course. But Republican big government certainly didn’t do anything to help.
Though Nixon deserves considerable credit for bringing the Silent Majority into the GOP electoral coalition, few big-government conservatives hold up his presidency as a boon to the Republican Party. But some members of this seemingly oxymoronic club still want to rehabilitate George W. Bush as an example of how compassionate Toryism is the ticket to electoral success.
Given the results of the last two national elections, this is almost as convincing as the Goldwater-Nixon contrast. With the possible exception of the Bush tax cuts and the president’s SCHIP veto, it is hard to come up with any policy of this administration that was influenced by small-government conservatism. And notwithstanding his commitment to cutting wasteful spending, John McCain’s national greatness philosophy of government makes George W. Bush look like Calvin Coolidge.
Again, the Iraq war and the global financial crisis had more to do with the GOP’s losses over the past two election cycles than big-government Republicanism. But once again, big-government Republicanism certainly didn’t help. The Democrats were able to outbid Republicans on health care despite the Medicare prescription drug benefit, on education despite No Child Left Behind, and most spectacular on recession worries despite the $700 billion bailout plan.
With Republican numbers dipping to pre-1994 levels in both houses of Congress and a Chicago Democrat about to take over the presidency, it is difficult to argue with a straight face that compassionate conservatism will lead to a new GOP majority. Yet that doesn’t stop some people from trying.
Bill Kristol, for example, argued last week in the New York Times that advocating smaller government is the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. He points out that Republicans ran into political trouble when their new congressional majority tried to restrain the growth of Medicare spending in 1995. Bush, on the other hand, at least arguably helped himself in 2000 and 2004 by first advocating and then signing an expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.
Leaving aside whether it is truly “successful” government policy to worsen Medicare’s looming insolvency rather than try to alleviate it, this analysis leaves out some important political benchmarks. Despite the backlash against the class of ‘94’s Medicare gambit, Republicans continued to control Congress for twelve years afterward. The prescription drug benefit didn’t buy Republicans more than three years in the majority. Newt Gingrich handed over the speaker’s gavel to another Republican; President Bush will be replaced by unified Democratic control of the federal government’s elected branches.
Since World War II, Republicans have seriously tried to cut federal domestic spending exactly three times. They did so most recently during Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office and during the first two years of the Gingrich Congress. Republicans paid a steep political price both times — neither the 1982 nor the 1996 congressional elections were kind to GOP incumbents — but Reagan was reelected and the Gingrich majority still held. (The third group of Republicans who seriously tried to cut spending, the Do-Nothing Congress that stood athwart Harry Truman, didn’t survive though many of their spending cuts did.)
In other words, the Republicans were in better shape after their spending battles than they were after eight years of big-government conservatism under Nixon-Ford or Bush 43. That’s obviously not because the American electorate is comprised of doctrinaire libertarians. It probably has more to do with the fact there already exists a political party willing to satisfy voters’ needs for new government programs. That party is called the Democrats.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
frost| 12.15.08 @ 9:23AM
After the out'n'out betrayal of Dubya with his Compassionate Conservative (Liberal Lite) style of governing, I certainly would have voted for a Libertarian last month, BUT the opportunistic Bob Barr was more of a Republican than the GOP candidate. Held my nose and voted McCain, in reality voting against the socialist...
Nah, it's a question of principle. And, never again will I compromise. If the candidate isn't a Barry Goldwater advocate, nope - forget it.
Bob| 12.15.08 @ 9:27AM
As the economy worsens and big institutions continue to fail, people will be looking to government for the answers because the situations are far too complex for most people to understand. Furthermore, if Republicans can't start appealing to blacks, Hispanics, and young people, then they will continue to lose. Healthcare must be addressed because the growth in healthcare costs has gone up twice as fast as the CPI. All of these things will require bigger government.
That said, there are conservative principles that can be applied to all of these problems instead of "just don't do them" -- especially in the areas of personal and fiscal responsibility. We can also be the voice of reason in restricting future bailouts -- a winning strategy in my opinion.
Reagan really wasn't a fiscal conservative and we should get off of that kick. Under Reagan, we had more government growth than with most other recent Presidents. He said a lot of the right stuff, but didn't act that way in office.
Obama Rules| 12.15.08 @ 10:32AM
The state of Texas, under the leadership of
Governor George W. Bush, was ranked:
a. 50th in spending for teachers' salaries
b. 49th in spending on the environment
c. 48th in per-capita funding for public health
d. 47th in delivery of social services
e. 42nd in child-support collections
f. 41st in per-capita spending
on public education
g. 5th in percentage of population
living in poverty
h. 1st in air and water pollution
i. 1st in percentage of poor working parents
without insurance
j. 1st in percentage of children
without health insurance
k. 1st in executions (avg. 1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)
And to think that you guys voted him for president, TWICE.
Thank God the tyranny will be over in January!
Dai Alanye | 12.15.08 @ 11:39AM
It always comes back to the being a choice or an echo. There never has been a reason to vote for a party that stands for the same--but not quite as much--as the other party, and there likely never will be.
Had Dubya been shown himself a strong opponent of big spending and unlimited immigration his popularity would today be much higher, and we'd be talking today of his successes rather than his failures. Instead, he bought into the ideas of compromise and bipartisanship, which in Washington always mean doing things the Democrat way.
Bad Dubya! Bad RINOs! Quit deluding yourselves, and start offering voters a clear conservative choice.
Paul Bunker| 12.15.08 @ 12:14PM
Mr. Antle makes it clear that the electorate needs to come to its' senses. When might that happen? When they become better educated about what a republic is, how it is intended to work and better informed by the maimed stream media!
Bob| 12.15.08 @ 12:35PM
Dai -- Dubya failed because he acted on faith rather than reason. That has been one of my main points here. If he had been a conservative acting on reason, he would have promoted the tenets of fiscal conservatism and limited government because he had the analytical proof that these things worked. Again, there was not enough of a separation between church and state.
Real American| 12.15.08 @ 1:00PM
You'd think this was common sense. Of course, anyone who thinks big government is a good idea lacks common sense to begin with.
Mr. Steele| 12.15.08 @ 1:43PM
Obama Rules Says:
" a. 50th in spending for teachers' salaries
b. 49th in spending on the environment
c. 48th in per-capita funding for public health
d. 47th in delivery of social services
e. 42nd in child-support collections
f. 41st in per-capita spending
on public education
g. 5th in percentage of population
living in poverty", blah blah blah, etc.
Thanks for arguing in favor of limited government.
GW| 12.15.08 @ 1:48PM
Dear O Rules:
You never add anything substantive to the point(s) being made. Sources for those stats would be a good start since we like facts and logic (anathema to a liberal).
Other than that....Look! It's the new Wii!
JP| 12.15.08 @ 2:24PM
The problem for the GOP these last several decades is assuming that the electorate is as conservative as they are. Reagan and Gingrich found out painfully that most Americans enjoy thier pork.
Today, the Federal Govermant is about to add $3 trillion to the $10 trillion it piled up during the 20th Century; Congress is about to take over both the Big 3 Automakers as well as the banks. Daschle has plans on nationalizing our health care systems. When will it end? When the holders of US dollar denominated assets, T-Bills, and cash realize that the US Goverment cannot make the minimum payments on its mountain of debt. Check out what occured to Weimar Germany in 1923 and you will get an answer.
It will only be then that the average voter will wake up.
Carner York| 12.15.08 @ 4:35PM
I am convinced that roughly 60% of voters have no clue about most of the issues. A large percentage of voters simply vote for change because they are typically tired of the same old. Obama's change mantra was pure genius. His calm demeanor and in control posture was also extremely effective. Let's face it, politics is more of a popularity contest than it has ever been. If Romney wasn't a Mormon, I believe that he would have a great chance to win the Presidency. (Sad about the stupid prejudice people seem to have towards Morminism but it appears it so). He is good looking, articulate, deliberate and confident. My suggestion to the GOP is to find a similar type guy and start grooming him now. And I mean groom. I suggest he use the campaign slogan, "Back to basics" and pound away on the principles that made this country great in the simplest of terms. It is clear to me that any GOP Presidential candidate who tries to mimick the Dems (McCain comes immediately to mind) has no chance of winning.
Bob| 12.15.08 @ 5:35PM
Carner, I agree totally with your analysis. However, "Back to Basics" will probably not work since the vast majority of people want more from the government, not less. When you go back to basics, you cut programs. What programs, then will you cut? Faith based activities? AID's support in Africa? The Department of Education? The EPA? The FTC? The military? Infrastructure spending? Medicare and social security make up 53% of the budget. Do you roll those programs back? How many votes will you get?
In order for a "Back to Basics" strategy to work, you must have a majority of voters who are both knowledgeable and self reliant. We both know that the majority of the population is neither. Besides, the biggest issue aside from the economy that will probably hit in four years is heathcare. Have you even heard a GOOD conservative solution to reduce costs and cover the 50 million who are not now covered?
What must be done is to cut peripheral programs and grow the programs that will help people most. That's not "back to basics", that's listening to people's needs and not mortgaging the future of our children.
Lazzerous| 12.15.08 @ 6:14PM
Obama Rules.
Well done you have been on the ball looking up your facts. Bush was a moron. he come from a rich family who don't need to care about anybody.
Why should anybody of colour vote for someone who want to imprison them, offer no education, no job opportunity, no community programmes for children or anybody.
Infact Mr Steele. Think they don't even need a government, if that is the case why bother to vote, why not allow people to invest their money and just have the lot stolen by crooks, if you are so sure you don't need regulations. Mr Steele why not introduce the law of the Jungle which is what you more or less acheived under the most foolish man ever elected on earth.
Thom | 12.15.08 @ 7:04PM
ObamaRules, Texas was all those things under the previous Democrat governors too. It will remain that way as long as Mexico is south of the border and the state has such a large illegal immigration population. That's what happens when you don't control your borders and immigration policy.
Thom| 12.15.08 @ 7:38PM
The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
I don’t know the context in which JFK spoke these words but at face value they hold a universal truth of their own. Both ignorance and falsehoods run rampant in our society today. Everyone has their version of the truth, according to Google which in effect means there is no objective measure of truth possible. Ignorance will run its course and when that course is run several time tested universal truths will be revealed that do not bend to the whining of the ignorance masses. The truth is really going to hurt.
Bob| 12.16.08 @ 6:34AM
The "universal truth" is one of science and data. Religious truth is in the eye of the beholder. Is the real truth Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Episcopalian, Christian Science. For those who are interested in "truth", here's some interesting data:
http://adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
Objective measures are possible if one agrees on education and methodology. Examples? Gravity is a universal truth. The existence of the earth is a universal truth. Etc., etc., etc. The problem I have is that people don't understand how to analyze the data we have. For example, there is a widespread belief among so-cons that Palin was a plus for the McCain ticket. But analysis of the RCP polling trend data marked for major events showed that there was a significant decline AT the Gibson interview and another significant decline at the Couric interview. Allied polling data shows a concurrent loss in the women's vote. The only real explanation of the data is that she was an attractive candidate -- especially to women -- until people knew more about her. Then, she was a net negative. She did attract larger contingents at her rallies, but it did not turn into an electoral advantage for McCain.
Many people argue that McCain lost because of his poor reaction to the economic crisis. However, the data does not support this conclusion as there was no permanent loss at the time of the crisis. It also looks like the undecideds trended towards Obama on a steady basis -- not on an event basis -- which means that people became increasingly comfortable with him.
To believe otherwise, with data this explanatory, is true ignorance.
Thom| 12.16.08 @ 4:12PM
Bob,
Here’s some universal truths for you:
The Earth is Flat. That was the truth of those entrusted with such things until it was proven wrong.
The Earth is the center of the Universe….. same deal. That could ultimately prove to be right given enough time and government funds.
The Earth is entering another Ice Age (according to the consensus science that existed in the late 60s to mid seventies) until that was proven false. The cure was to produce more CO2 to cause warming. From this we now know what to do to cure global cooling (next). There were several renditions of this connected to running out of food, crop land, oil and the dreaded population “bomb” that predicted doom in the near term until all were proven wrong.
The Earth is entering manmade global warming…..proclaimed by the same government funded scientists that said we were entering another Ice Age back in the 70s. The data that claim is based is just as suspect and no warming has occurred since the mid 90s and cooling is actually occurring since 1999 but we do now know how to cure the current global cooling thanks to all those scientists back in the 70s.
John McCain was losing by double digits before Palin was added to the ticket. What ever her net effect was after overwhelmingly negative media coverage, she still was a net positive for his ticket on the basis of where he was prior to it and where he ended up. Your analysis of the data conveniently overlooks this. You completely ignore John McCain own performance in this time period. In effect, you are pushing the data to support the conclusion you already have made. It is a common practice with those pushing an agenda.
By extension everything that “science” has said was a truth at one time or another is what you consider universal truth but I submit that everything that “science” can’t prove is not necessarily false simply because there is no proof. The best science available proved O. J. Simpson was a double murder but look at what value that universal truth had to those that have no concept of truth?
Science can’t prove or disprove love, hatred, joy, sadness or any other emotion contained within the human intellect but these certainly exists in the real world. Science can’t even approach the concept of emotion because it can’t put a measure to it. Much of life’s ups and downs are reflected in emotions, not because we all aren’t like Mr. Spock. Some things will remain a matter of faith simply because humanity is not yet devolved to that of a hive of insects. There are universal truths for humanity and they existed a long time before what you think is the basis for your universal truths had a name. Science today as it is practiced is more of a political movement or new age religion rather than a search for the “truth”. The global warming nonsense reflects this just as well as anything. One of the cardinal rules of scientific proof is that the proof must be repeatable. No science can prove what is claimed to be proven about man made global warming. That leaves just theory and theory has a lot in common with opinion and as we know every government scientists has one.
Truth is truth Bob. You don’t need an instrument to measure it.
societyis2blame| 12.16.08 @ 5:55PM
So long as our tax-funded educational system spends 75% of its self-interested efforts on indoctrinating our children to want more government control over our lives and property rather than teaching them how to think for themselves, there is little hope of breaking the every-spiraling entitlement cycle.
However, the one enemy socialism cannot beat is reality. You cannot consume more than you produce. It will win in the end - after we've all suffered years of progressively lower standards of living trying to buy off the inevitable reckoning for just one more lifetime.