Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
As I read the many posts on Ricochet either for or against Mitt Romney, I have been asking myself how I could have enthusiastically supported Romney as a Conservative against John McCain in 2008 and have little enthusiasm for his candidacy this year. What has changed?
At least two significant things: the election of a president and Congress with a very Progressive agenda in 2008, and the implosion of the entitlement administrative State in the Euro zone. We now have real world data on the failure of the Progressive agenda based on Europe, and we have a political party in America that is trying to implement that same failed agenda here. In addition, they seem to have the political momentum. Over two years ago, Professor Paul Rahe said that the election of President Obama was a gift to the friends of liberty. He said that Obama had pulled off the covers of the tyrannical impulses that lie at the heart of the administrative state and made them visible with the legislation he passed and the way in which he governed. Our personal liberty was being sucked away with each new law and regulation.
As I listened to Peter Robinson’s latest interview with Professor Rahe on Uncommon Knowledge, I had several “aha” moments. Peter recently visited Hillsdale College and gave a speech on Ronald Reagan. Professor Rahe said the thing that struck him about Peter’s speech was that Reagan was always returning to first principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in making his points and that no one in the current Republican field was doing that. He also described Republicans as the “sober managers of the welfare administrative state” and the Democrats as the “crazy managers of the welfare administrative state”.
I listened to the podcast several times, and said to myself “That’s it!”. I’m not convinced that Romney wants to stop the advance of the entitlement administrative state, but that he will simply try to manage it better, and that isn’t really what we need at this time.
In William Voegeli’s excellent book Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State he makes the case that there is never “enough” to the Progressive’s agenda. Personally, I wanted a candidate who said “This is enough! This is not working, it cannot work, and it is not sustainable. We are going to start dismantling the welfare entitlement state in a cost effective and humane way. We will govern by returning government to the first principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.”
I realize that we did not get where we are overnight. It will take many years to reverse the path that we have been on. But I wanted a Republican candidate who would start this process and could eloquently make the case for it. We don't seem to have one. But if Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, I will support him enthusiastically. The alternative of a re-elected President Obama is too depressing to contemplate.
Does this explain anyone else’s dissatisfaction with Romney’s candidacy? Is it because he is trying simply to deal only with the symptoms of the disease rather than the cause? Is Professor Rahe correct that “the friends of liberty are not up to the job”? What do you think?
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
In 2008, Romney was the most viable Non-McCain candidate, over the incompetent Fred Thompson.
Edited on November 16, 2011 at 10:31amOct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Al Kennedy:
I listened to the podcast several times, and said to myself “That’s it!”. I’m not convinced that Romney wants to stop the advance of the entitlement administrative state, but that he will simply try to manage it better, and that isn’t really what we need at this time.
If it'll make you feel better, Mitt Romney has embraced the Ryan Plan. And he also said that he will abolish/repeal Obamacare if he becomes president (unless you don't believe him).
Or do you prefer somebody who doesn't mince words on what he thinks about Social Security (cough... Ponzi scheme... cough).
Edited on November 16, 2011 at 10:30amOct '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
I think that's a good way to put it. Romney isn't so much a cutter as a trimmer. I supported Romney in 2008, back when Ann Coulter was referring to him as a "true conservative" on FNC. It was mostly because he seemed like the kind of guy that makes things work when there's a goal in mind, as evidenced by his tenure in Boston. I still feel that way, I just have less faith that he knows what the goal should be.
Do you suppose it's his experience as a manager and businessman? The way a CEO views the bottom line seems a lot more similar to the goals of the administrative state than to a limited, constitutional government. Like asking what the end result should be, and seeing how your tools can get you there. Useful for business, but possibly problematic for governing.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
John Marzan
In 2008, Romney was the most viable Non-McCain candidate, over the incompetent Fred Thompson. · Nov 16 at 1:22am
Edited on Nov 16 at 01:31 am
I was attracted to Fred Thompson, but did not think his heart was in it. Subsequently, that proved to be true.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
John Marzan
Al Kennedy:
I listened to the podcast several times, and said to myself “That’s it!”. I’m not convinced that Romney wants to stop the advance of the entitlement administrative state, but that he will simply try to manage it better, and that isn’t really what we need at this time.
If it'll make you feel better, Mitt Romney has embraced the Ryan Plan. And he also said that he will abolish/repeal Obamacare if he becomes president (unless you don't believe him).
Or do you prefer somebody who doesn't mince words on what he thinks about Social Security (cough... Ponzi scheme... cough). · Nov 16 at 1:29am
Edited on Nov 16 at 01:30 am
I would feel better when I hear Mitt Romney's personal endorsement of Paul Ryan's plan because it attempts to halt and reverse the entitlement administrative state based on the fact that it results in a government that is closer to our founder's vision.
You also need to remember that Jennifer Rubin believes that Mitt Romney is more likely to defeat President Obama than any other current Repulbicn candidate.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
It could be. You make a good point. His only elective office was as a one term governer of a very liberal state. I just can't convince myself where he stands on the entitlement administrative state and what he wants to do about it.
Edited on November 16, 2011 at 12:45pmMay '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/193867-gop-leaders-press-tax-issue-with-rank-and-file
This is why I will not vote for Romney. The GOP is ready to sell out conservatives at the drop of a hat. With Romney in the Whitehouse, think of how much worse the GOP in Congress will act.
Pledge to America? What's that?
Jun '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
I think your analysis is pretty much spot on except for one point. We could put an end to the administrative state literally overnight if someone had the guts to do it. Congress has the power to simply defund the various alphabet agencies of the federal government. We'll hear the same amount of shrieking from the left-wing media anyway whether such a program is carried out incrementally or scorched earth. You don't prune weeds; you eradicate them root, stem, and branch.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Al Kennedy
I would feel better when I hear Mitt Romney's personal endorsement of Paul Ryan's plan because it attempts to halt and reverse the entitlement administrative state based on the fact that it results in a government that is closer to our founder's vision.
You also need to remember that Jennifer Rubin believes that Mitt Romney is more likely to defeat President Obama than any other current Repulbicn candidate. · Nov 16 at 3:32am
Paul Ryan approves of Mitt Romney's plan after meeting with him on government reform!
As for Jennifer Rubin's bias, the Huffington Post basically said the same thing--Romney is embracing the Ryan Plan.
Jul '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
There was a guy who wrote a treatise against the advance of the entitlement administrative state. He actually ran on the program, and got a whole lot of Congressmen elected as well.
His name is Newt Gingrich and he wrote the "Contract with America."
Apr '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Romney is a manager and as a manager he would only shrink the size of any organization he is involved with when the incentive is there to do so. If he is nominated and then elected what possible incentives would be in place for him to roll back anything.
We witnessed a blood bath, in election speak, in 2010 and the dialogue has changed slightly but all we see is posturing and promises and deadline after deadline, supposed crises after crises and what is our hope for change except for more of the same if not worse.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
A few points. First, the American administrative state is very different than most European countries, where executive power is delegated to the legislature in many cases (and politicians face voter accountability for regulations), instead of the other way around.
The administrative state is not the same thing as the welfare state. They are two separate entities. The administrative state is based on the concept of "administrative law," where unelected technocrats issue regulations. The legislature delegates power the executive, in other words. The welfare state is a set of universal social insurance and means-tested poverty programs. It is distinct from the administrative state.
Apr '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Great post Al, by the way.
I agree with your assessment of what the majority's problem is with nominating Romney.
Oct '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
I think it's absurd to think we'll get rid of both the administrative and the welfare state at once. It's much more feasible, in my opinion, to limit our efforts to dismantling the administrative state.
Apr '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Not to change the subject, but can anyone else envision a crisis looming on the horizon which will unfold say around mid-summer which will seal the deal for Obama's reelection?
Apr '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
I believe from a politician's viewpoint, he has the greater self-interest to rollback the welfare state as long as won't hurt his reelection chances. What reason would he have to roll back the very system which sustains his existence. It would be analogous to a union head cutting back union membership.
Mar '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
While a recent cover trumpeted "We Are All Socialists Now" in a long line of similarly off-the-wall and off the mark observations. they could have accurately stated: WE ARE ALL STATISTS NOW.
Maybe the Prof. is correct and the only difference between the political parties is how zany they are in their respecttive administration of the welfare state. To me the analogy is becoming more and more like skiing. We are all "skiers" now, except Republicans want "bunny slopes" and Dems prefer Black Diamonds. The end result is however the same: both get us to the bottom. And when from the bottom we then choose an assisted lift back up the mountain--sorry, the lift is broken and there is neither money nor will to fix it.
May '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
1) Not even William Voegeli believes that we can eliminate the welfare state, and he qwrote the book on it.
2) "stop the advance of the entitlement administrative state"- the entitlement part of this is driven by dollars and the limitation will happen on its own; the question is what it will look like. Will the solution enhance personal freedom and choice or more tops-down rationing? I think that all of the Republican candidates would agree with a more market-centered approach- that's what made them Republicans. The question comes down to who might be able to pull it off.
Oct '11
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Joseph Eagar:
The administrative state is not the same thing as the welfare state. They are two separate entities. The administrative state is based on the concept of "administrative law," where unelected technocrats issue regulations. The legislature delegates power the executive, in other words. The welfare state is a set of universal social insurance and means-tested poverty programs. It is distinct from the administrative state. · Nov 16 at 9:20am
That's right, and it's important because the administrative state is invisible to the eye but a monster off the government balance sheet. The scariest class I ever took was administrative law (though I'm sure Gender and the Law would have been quite the terror); you realize just how deep you have to dig to pull up all the roots. Presidents and senators come and go, along with agency heads, but underlying it all are the lifelong bureaucrats that knows the rules, are used to the network, and that the public only see when they're specifically affected by them. It's hard to change culture when the political winds only last for a few years or so.
May '10
Re: Are Conservatives Dissatisfied Because We Don't Have A Candidate Opposing the Administrative State?
Conservatives need to be careful not to project our preferences on the electorate over all. See this piece by Jay Cost- "strong partisan" voters are only about 30% of the electorate, note the last two graphs on the first page.
Most of the rest swing, and they decide the elections.