I first begin to feel disappointment with President Bush in the spring of 2003 when my friend David Boaz of the Cato Institute alerted me to an Op-ed he had written detailing the Republican’s spendthrift ways. Instead of containing the size of the federal government as our party had long committed to do, Bush had expanded it — and not just for national security.
I had initially hoped that with Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches of government for the first time in two generations, we could finally start cutting a federal government which had grown so rapidly during decades of Democratic legislative dominance.
And now with Democrats returning to power, controlling the executive as well as the legislative branches, it seems they’ll continue to push the growth that my party failed to contain. Even after the GOP’s brief sojourn in power, they didn’t succeed in eliminating any significant federal programs. Instead of Democratic policies restoring some kind of status quo ante, they’ll just build upon the growth long since in place. Our government will be bigger than ever before.
So, herewith the great irony of the 2008 elections. We’re about to have the most left-wing government in recent history, elected to replace one perceived as conservative but which was, in practice, particularly on domestic issues, anything but.
The problem is that while Democrats (and sometimes even Republicans) succeed in expanding the size and scope of the federal government, Republicans (when they are at their best) succeed only in containing its growth, not reducing its size.
With the media on the side of the Democrats and bigger government, it seems we’ll never succeed in returning to the Jeffersonian ideal of limited government. Alas for our economy, for our nation, our freedom.
Dan, fair enough points on Bush but it’s instrumental to note that some at Cato (like Bill Niskanen) are arguing that the real blame for the run-up of the federal govt lies more appropriately with the conservative GOP leadership in the House and Senate during the 107th & 108th Congress and their unique corruption by power and self-deluding perception of a legacy/mandate.
Plug for Cato? Next month they’re holding a policy forum in Chicago and one of the panels is on a terrific book: “Dirty Dozen” by Levy & Chip Mellor… a must-read for anyone concerned about judicial activism on the liberal side and judicial restraint/passivism on the conservative side. Terrific book –even better forum to hear it firsthand, dirt cheap… if you can stomach Chicago.
The real increases in National Debt were run up under Republican Presidents, especially the recordsetting GW Bush. The Democrats can’t hold a candle in terms of fiscal imprudence.
I dunno about that JR. The real budget busters, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were all instituted by Democrats. A temporaty few trillion in debt is nothing compared to the unfunded amounts that those two programs represent. I think the combined total is something like $120 trillion. Conveniently Congress has put those off budget so that we sheep can be ignorant of them. And, what about the current deficit increase of over two trillion voted in by the current Democrat controlled Congress?
Hunter- Don’t forget the rest of the Great Society and the New Deal.
JR, I’ll ask you to wait four years… and then repeat that.
We’re in the midst of a financial/economic train wreck which the government will be powerless to stop. Eventually we’ll have a situation of massive private sector unemployment combined with the destruction of private retirement accounts. The voters will then simply not tolerate funding an ineffectual government, with the associated army of employees in their “it’s almost illegal to fire me” jobs, with their insanely overgenerous pensions. Then the real cutting will begin. Once big government is widely perceived as adding negative value to society, it will be chopped down to size (and not a moment sooner).
One hundred years ago the largest Federal agency, and usually the only one a citizen ever had contact with, was the Post Office. Average citizens had little other contact with, nor paid Federal taxes to, any other agencies other than perhaps the Customs Service if in a port-city. And tarrifs, duties and customs-fess provided the main-income for the non-Post Office portion of the Federal Government….and mineral-rights royalties and grazing and timber fees an important secondary-source.
Now we not only have huge Federal and State bureuacracies to collar, but we’ll at some point have to deal with the quasi-nationalized financial and the partially-nationalized auto/truck/heavy industry-sectors to down-size, rationalize and privatize. …Plus the looming health-care nationalization or vertical integration.
….I feel a huge headache coming-on.
The size and scope of our government will be reduced when foreign competition can no longer be ignored. Only when those countries who have put into practice what our founders advocated (and at our own behest) have shown us the way by outpacing us in every category will there be enough domestic momentum to change directions. We also need to overcome the cultural barriers of race and its related class envy. Ironically, the progeny of illegal Hispanic immigrants who value work, family, and tradition may save conservatism; though to our shame, the doubt we have in our own government likely relates to the doubt in their own that they bring with them. Overcoming a truly terrible school system would help also.
I’d hate to depend upon the ashes of a complete meltdown to inspire change: The Phoenix might have a previous engagement and it’s way too easy for something or someone sinister to arise.
Bush may have run as a conservative, and allowed himself to be labeled a conservative, but he governed like a moderate Democrat. A conservative would not have pushed for a new Medicare entitlement, nor would he have gone crazy with domestic spending the way Bush did. I think one of the things the conservative movement needs to do is bury the myth of Bush’s conservatism.
During the campaign, Chairman O made promises that total as much as $795 Billion in new spending, and only proposed $270 Billion in tax increases to pay for it. And he was on ’60 Minutes’ last weekend saying deficits don’t matter.
Unfortunately, that is human nature.
Bush spent more in real dollars then LBJ and added another unfunded entitlement/mandate in terms of prescription drug benefits for Medicaire/Medicaid. He had help with the GOP Congress. However, the Democrat Congress in 2007-2008 were no better.
Now, we will have the Marxist in Chief with an extremely Leftist Congress and nothing to keep them in check.
Reagan cut tax rates and kept government in check. Clinton had a GOP Congress to keep his excesses in check.
Divided government keeps things in gridlock and hopefully keeps spending in check.
Bush should have insisted on a strong homeland security and spent money that way (at least building the infrastructure to make ports, rail roads, airports, water and power plants, rebuild the electric grid, work on energy independence) would have been wise government investments and doing so by letting free enterprise come up with solutions to these areas and tax incentives to create American jobs.
work on border security would have helped instead of the invisible fence that didn’t work…
Letting the morons at Freddie/Fannie Mae run wild didn’t help either and Bush didn’t cut the size of the federal budget (separate and apart from the much needed spending on the military that was starved under Clinton with the help of the GOP Congress in the 1990s)
Bush in too many ways reminded me of Pappy Bush and was no Ronald Reagan.
Bush was a radical free spender and started our horrible slide into socialism..Nobama will push us way further in a deep socialism/Marxism…..
I am wondering where are the capitalists in this country? What happened to the Reaganites in the GOP? I hope they finally stand up and say no more and let’s get going….and sing loudly and refuse to sit down until we have another Reagan Revolution.
We are going to need it badly!
Mark Steyn:
Congress knows how to farm, develop medicine, regulate trade, find out why the price of oil spikes, create universal health care, fix education, mend race relations, stop illegal aliens, rehabilitate criminals, control the free market, stop global warming, and secure the blessings peace and prosperity on us and our posterity.
These are 535 carefully selected geniuses who come together for the altruistic reason of making us all better for having them in our lives.
If the government has to grow and expand, that is just the natural price of living in this golden age of HOHPENSCHAINZE. (Marxist for hope and change.)
“I think one of the things the conservative movement needs to do is bury the myth of Bush’s conservatism.”
That might be convenient for some sort of resurgent conservative movement, but we’d do better to just ignore that truth instead of an ostrich-like relabeling of it as a “myth”, declare the last 10 years of the conservative movement an utter failure, begin by understanding that Obama stands likely to do for liberals and Democrats what Reagan did for conservatives and the GOP, and then reconstruct the GOP into a winning, successful coalition of political allies.
Naked ideology serves no one except the fringe and a few angry cynics who sat out the election… oh, and the farRight info-entertainer pundits intent on re-writing history before the ink dries.
Control of federal spending isn’t an issue for most voters, but what’s left in their pocketbooks and wallets will soon be.
Michigan-Matt,
Please explain what a centrist is and why centrists can appeal to voters and beat leftist promises.
What coalition of political allies do you envision?
How would this centrist coalition bypass control of federal spending and appeal to voters on the basis of what’s left in their pocketbooks and wallets?
I am not able to envision the principles that underlie your points. I understand Conservatism and Socialism. It is the middle where I muddle.
At this point, Reagan was no Ronald Reagan.
Reagan espoused smaller government ideals, but he didn’t practice what he preached. Fed spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. Excluding civilians working for the military (my dad was one) the federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. Note that under Bill Clinton, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Some of that can be attributed to subsequent decrease in military spending (some necessary due to the end of the cold war, some not), but even so, that is cutting the size of government, in practice, not in rhetoric.
Now, I know, I know, there will be indignant blasts that I’m an idiot because Reagan had a Democratic congress and Clinton had a Republican one, Reagan spent to win the cold war, etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. This is all true. But what ever happened to the concept of ultimate responsibility falling to the laps of not only our leaders, even those we revere, but of us, the voters, as well? We will never grow into a true party of fiscal conservatives unless we are willing to not only stop making excuses for past failures to stop the growth of government, including Reagan’s failure to do so, but also for us, the voter, to take responsibility for those failures. We are all too willing to let other priorities take precedence over fiscal responsibility. And yes, that does include the War On Terror. We need to be willing to abandon everything else that distracts us from that goal, which includes many social issues. No more spending for pet projects… period. And we have to be willing to place all things under the fiscal ax, including military spending.
Dan, the goal you strive for is a noble one, one that is foremost at the top of my agenda. I DID NOT vote for Bush in 2004, I did not vote for Obama or McCain either, for the same reason. Their fiscal policies sucked.
Until all in the Republican values fiscal restraint ABOVE ALL ELSE, you will never see your goal.
That should be the last line in the post that just got et’ by the spam filter.
Until all in the Republican party values fiscal restraint ABOVE ALL ELSE, you will never see your goal.
The moderate GOP got their man nominated this time around and lost in an electoral college blowout.
The Frums and the other moderates may be thinking that this conservative thing is “So Over” but I don’t really see the point into remaking the GOP into a party that favors spending… just not as much, that favors taxation… just not as much, and a large Federal government… just not quite that large. If the GOP becomes just an echo of the Democrats… well, why vote for the copy, when you can vote for the original?
What a messed-up phrasing for the claim. The concrete aspect is true, that **GOP leadership** abandoned its principles, spent like a druken sailor (let’s thank McCain for one good line), and failed in its mission to reverse the growth of government. Undeniable. But to call them “conservative” for doing so is MM spin that warps the meaning of words out of all recognition. They weren’t conservative. Not at all. That’s the point. We’d all love it (or most of us) if the GOP really were headed by true, Reagan/Goldwater fiscal conservatives.
Yes – and who knows; it might be a blessing in the long run that the Democrats were there (in power) to reap the whirlwind. The Republicans under Bush followed Democrat philosophy; they were Democrats in pro-American clothing. Since the bad philosophy / principles at the root of the errors lie with the Democrats, why shouldn’t they hold power? And take the blame for the coming problems?
Unfortunately, Big Government is an addiction. As a nation, we have a date with lots more of it. ‘Hitting bottom’ may be our only remaining hope for salvation. Sorry to sound so glum.
I’m trying to do my part, but my posts don’t seem to make it into this site. Please see the link below though.
Separation of Marriage and State
http://ideas.rebuildtheparty.com/pages/general/suggestions/66509
Hitting bottom’ may be our only remaining hope for salvation. Sorry to sound so glum.
#19: ILC, I share your pessimism. Eurpoeans have far larger (and unsustainable) welfare states yet they don’t see any problem with it (at least for now). We’re doing our best to “catch up” to our betters.
Bush and the GOP Congress were unmitigated disasters. The GOP got into the vote-buying spending groove (expert mode) and Bush vetoed nothing (at least through 2006).
We were better off with Clinton and GOP Congress. “Gridlock” anyone?
We can’t look at federal spending by itself… just look at what the states have been up to.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/stspend90s.htm
We will eventually return to limited government, whether we like it or not, when ours inevitably collapses.
But just to correct the record, aside from prescription drug coverage which the American people overwhelmingly supported in the 2000 election, the greatest growth in the size of government was the Department of Homeland security, a proposal Bush objected to strenuously until Democrats, the media and the 9/11 harpies beat him into it.
Furthermore, every budget cycle, Bush not only proposed much smaller budgets than congress returned to him, he also proposed major cuts including the elimination of whole programs — every cycle. He used up what political capital he had after his 2004 victory trying to fight Democrats AND Republicans into reforming Social Security.
Yes, its true he could have vetoed lots more, and I suppose cynics could even argue he did not fight hard enough on cutting spending, eliminating programs and SS, but lets be realistic, aside from prescription drugs, which was a done deal before he was even elected, the vast increases in government got their start with congress.
An article for AE, SCR, and ILC, on the tipping point and our our country’s headlong dash toward oblivion.
I know, I know, I know it’s not popular around here to call the spade a spade –especially when it doesn’t reflect well upon the conservative leadership of Congress over the last decade of Congressional GOP control. But the simple truth is that conservative GOPers ran Congress for a decade-plus and guys like Tom Delay (No Moderates Need Apply fame) spent the federal budget like drunken sailors in a whorehouse in Manila… to now argue that fiscal restraint ought to be a central value in a resurgent conservative movement is like trying to tell that sailor to keep it in his pants but keep on drinking. It won’t work; it’s pure delusion.
You can call it spin (thanks ILC), bad word crafting, whatever; the consensus outside the narrow conservative orbit is that conservatives were indeed in charge of Congress, the WH and federal judiciary and the turkeys got slaughtered early for Thanksgiving. To the extent that the GOP allowed social conservatives to overtake the Party’s message (in a willing, engaged fashion) and bring on electoral destruction is problematic. Moderate GOPers didn’t select McCain as much as some ostrich-like social cons would like to project… political independents operating in open primaries did that. Of the three top GOP primary candidates -McCain, Romney and Guiliani- it ought to be insturmental that none of them were viewed as “conservatives” per se by the narrow fringe… and the ones who were “true enuff” conservatives got left on the dump pile early… and with good reason. To be seen by natl voters as “conservative” was as toxic as being labeled GOPers.
The problem will remain, however, that conservative GOP members in Congress had absolute control over the purse strings, the agenda, the pulpit and the platform and they botched it royally by engaging in hypocritical conduct on fiscal restraint, small govt ideals, strong natl defense, America’s historic role as a Nation of Immigrants, etc… to do as some here contend (ie, just call Bush’s conservatism a myth and restore the luster of the movement) is patently disingenious and intellectually dishonest because Bush was a social conservative by nearly all counts EXCEPT a fringe group within the conservative movement who, I think, embrace disloyalty as a value for self-preservation almost as greedily as they consume comfort food at the local truck stop buffet.
It isn’t about Bush any longer. Nor McCain-Plain.
It’s about the GOP rebuilding itself as a BigTent Party, returning to its historic role and political policy values, trying to reconnect with entire voting blocks we’ve lost in the long, lonely walk down the farRight side of the road.
Frankly, RINO may be a term better used to describe many social conservative voters in this last election than any LiddyDole or LincChaffee type in the Party. That’s the irony of this election –that and the fact that social cons want to spend more time repainting the past (let’s make Bush a myth) than engaged in building the Party for the future.
by and large, most Americans don’t want smaller government, they only want a more effective government. Until the GOP realizes this, it’ll continue to lose in blow-out landslides.
Oh, sure, all the Republicans need is a guy who isn’t ideological, who is skeptical… perhaps even hostile to the religious right, who engages Democrats and moderates, and who is committed not to smaller government, but someone committed to making big government work better.
In other words, someone like John “Landslide” McCain.
Conservatives have insisted we need only elect conservatives in order that the GOP once again enjoy Reaganesque victories. Bush was touted as such and as I view the smoking ruin, I wonder whether we’re the ones with the styrofoam columns and the party platform with the trap door.
Both major parties depend upon coalitions to win elections. Period. This year, the leftist coalition(s) (anti-war, media, unions, academe, FDR IV-drippers, etc.) rallied around the “McCain is Bush” (or “Obama isn’t Bush”) mantra and won. They were organized and unified and their message was simple and clear: Change for its own sake. There undoubtedly are many promises that were made and some will likely refuse to tow the line and will ultimately defect. But Democrats understand that the only way to move the country in their direction is to be in power. Republicans argue prior to the election about how best to govern. Democrats argue after getting elected about how best to govern. Republicans recognize that power corrupts and are suspicious of it while Democrats are corrupt and eagerly seize it. Achilles and his posse don’t want to win.
Sorry, I meant “…nominate conservatives…” in the first sentence.
Operative words: WAS TOUTED. That’s the whole answer, isn’t it? But I’ll spell it out for you:
– Touted by whom? Himself.
– Touted toward what end? Getting elected. It worked, didn’t it? In other words, yes, Americans *usually* (or on average) have preferred the conservative.
– Touted with what degree of accuracy? Very little. In other words, no, Bush – and his crappy Ford Administration resurrectees – *did not* govern as conservatives. And that is the whole secret of their domestic/economic failure. I know it. You know it.
As for the Democrats: they can get away with what they get away with, because they have 90% of the media on their side. Republicans don’t. Republicans *must* lead with coherent, principled stands if they are going to win. 2004 proved that Republicans can be nothing with something (i.e., beat Kerry with Bush who had at least taken a principled stand in the GWOT). 2006 and 2008 have proven that Republicans cannot beat nothing with nothing. Only the Democrats, having 90% of the media on their side, can and do beat nothing with nothing.
“The consensus” of mushy moderates trying to spin away the blame for their terrible failures these last 8 years. But let’s check reality. Bush was President. And in his entire first six years, he never vetoed a single spending bill. Not one! No President since Roosevelt has increased discretionary, non-entitlement, NON-defense spending more than Bush. That sure was “conservative” of him, not. Cheney was Vice President. Cheney, a Ford Administration resurrectee who said “Deficits don’t matter”. So conservative of him, not. In Congress: we got Trent Lott, Stevens, Hastert and Tom DeLay, the get-elected-at-any-price Kings of Pork. In the judiciary, we have Kennedy and Souter and Stevens (and had O’Connor) as the deciding votes on most issues. Yup, they sure are conservative, not. Conservatives sure have been in charge of America all this time, not.
So the question hanging it the air is this:
Why can’t you get “True Conservatives” elected?
But America has elected real conservatives before. Cf. Ronald Reagan.
Of course, real conservatives can’t be elected, if they’re not nominated. As more than one person has implied in different words, the media and the nominating process (Washington power structure) seem to prefer the big spenders and mushy moderates – gee, I wonder why. And their supporters are willing to spread confusion and tout big spending, mushy moderates as alleged “conservatives”; witness this very thread.
Cato, on who the big-spending Presidents are:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/09/27/presidential-spending/
Reagan is the only President of the last 50 years to cut non-defense, discretionary spending in real terms. I wish he’d accomplished a lot more, believe me. But considering the headwinds he fought against – in terms of the Carter recession and the Tip O’Neill Congress – he did alright.
Bush increased non-defense, discretionary spending the most of any President since Franklin Roosevelt. More even that Johnson, Nixon or Carter. Sorry, that ain’t no conservative.
Whoops, sorry, I mis-read the chart. Bush didn’t manage to top Johnson, Nixon or Ford, only Carter, Bush 41 and Clinton. I apologize for the error and here is the corrected statement. Bush gave us our biggest non-defense, discretionary spending binge since the Great Society era. That ain’t no conservative.
Again I ask:
Why can’t you get “True Conservatives†elected?
You answer – Ronald Reagan.
OK. But that was almost thirty years ago. And I guess we need to ask:
What are the requirements to be considered a “True Conservative”?
It’s an interesting question, that if answered, would clarify things. And please don’t answer in negative, in terms of who isn’t a Conservative, ie. John McCain isn’t a True Conservative because blah, blah, blah.. I have a few ideas but will wait to see what fleshes out on the question.
Why can’t you get “True Conservatives†elected?
Two words: Open Primaries.
I think it’s not nearly that simplistic. But OK. If your premise is correct, then the remedy is simple. Campaign / petition for closed Republican primaries.
I’ll have more on the subject tomorrow.
sf, “True Conservative” (capitals) is your construction. So I wouldn’t know what it takes either to be considered one or to get one elected. You should please tell us – since it’s your construction.
As for real conservatives – as opposed to faux conservatives, say, or CINOs – again:
1) The country elects them – when given the chance, which is rare.
2) One of the requirements for being considered one should certainly be that you want to CUT GOVERNMENT. If someone wants to expand government, they aren’t a real conservative, They’re a poseur at best.
OK now, I just gave a “smell test” for “conservative”. I’m an Independent voter, out there in the marketplace, trying to sniff out who is really what. If someone claims they’re a conservative, but a “compassionate” one proposes massive new entitlements (think Bush 2000), I know they’re just posing to appropriate the name and get elected (think Bush 2000). Having said that: I am not myself a conservative and I will let this blog’s conservatives say what else might distinguish a real one.
*eyeroll*
Romneycare? Taxabee? There was no true conservative in this year’s race if measured by the purists. Bob Barr came closest and he’s not winning anything anytime soon.
Winning elections is about nominating and voting for a viable candidate. Conservatives were wrong on Bush because he’s no conservative and wrong on McCain because he’s supposedly unacceptable. Democrats understand that Obama is ‘generally leftist’ and are willing to accept the country’s shift to the left with his administration even though their own particularl interest group may not be satisfied. We may abhor the left’s orgy of special interests, but it’s kicking our asses.
ILC, we can call them whatever we like. I only emphasizes “True Conservative” because we always talk about RINO’s, CINO’s, and the like – we get an idea of who ISN’T a Conservative, but we almost never hear about who IS. In order to separate the two, we need a clear definition of the qualifications.
And if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em? No thank you.
By the way, Ignatius… it’s the economy (financial crisis brought on by Freddie / Fannie / Democrats) and the media that have been kicking your ass. (Assuming you are a Republican and/or a conservative)
OK, so to summarize, my take as an ex-Democrat and current Independent is that the person is a real conservative, if they are serious about cutting government. I never believed for a second that Bush-
Ford, oopsCheney were real conservatives, and the past 8 years proved me correct. Palin and/or Jindal might be real conservatives; we’ll have to see how they develop. That’s my take. Let this blog’s conservatives step in with their take, if they care to.BTW, a fun fact for the record… In that Cato chart I quoted earlier… Ford (whose Chief of Staff was Cheney) was *the biggest* spender, the one who increased real non-defense, discretionary spending more than any Democrat including Lyndon Johnson.
From my comments in #29:
This year, the leftist coalition(s) (anti-war, media, unions, academe, FDR IV-drippers, etc.) rallied around the “McCain is Bush†(or “Obama isn’t Bushâ€) mantra and won.
From my comments at #44:
it’s the economy (financial crisis brought on by Freddie / Fannie / Democrats) and the media (see http://www.howobamagotelected.com) that have been kicking your ass.
*yawn*
Someone needs to learn to read.
Kind of off topic:
Interesting bits of info on that Cato Chart for Presidential spending. Carter is blasted as having gutted the military, yet the chart shows the level of military spending was about average of the group listed, at 3% growth. Clinton, who also gets a knock for gutting the military, did decrease it by 1.7. But you never hear of Bush 1 “gutting” the military at a spending decrease of 3.9%. I believe that Clinton did use Bush’s military cuts as part of his campaign in 92, but that info took a back seat, as it was “the economy stooopid”!
Iggy, get over yourself already.
sf – Good points, but in the Bush I era it was called “The peace dividend”, i.e., benefits of the Soviet Union’s collapse. As for Carter, basically he wanted defense to increase less than Reagan as part of his weaker overall stance against the Soviet Union. Remember him kissing Brezhnev? And then he was shocked, shocked I tells ya! when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. I could be mistaken, but I believe the bulk of his defense increase came in his final year when the voters already perceived it as too little – while the bulk of Reagan’s increases came in his first few years; he didn’t need to increase things as much in his second term.
IOW, Reagan’s real-dollar defense increases were probably (I’m taking wild guesses) something like 6-7% a year in his first term, 2% a year in his second, to get the 4.4% average over 8 years.