Life After Statism for the GOP?
At The American Conservative, Dan McCarthy groans:
we have indeed witnessed various manifestations of an anti-government, populist Right over the past 60 years. But what has happened every time? The Goldwaterites turn into Nixonians. A Reagan disappoints the populist hard right. Anti-Washington sentiment puts in power a Republican Congress which then embarks upon a K Street Project. Every time the GOP has lost power in the past half-century, it has reverted to anti-statist rhetoric. And every time the party resumes power, that rhetoric proves empty. Is there any reason to think this latest iteration will be any different?
Sure. Unparalleled brush with economic disaster. Not-so-popular president. Positively unpopular presidential policies. And a GOP reputation still in need of serious renovation. These are all fine reasons to think it might be different this time around. Dan himself concedes that the "variations" on this theme "matter" -- "the 1990’s Right, for all its problems, was at least anti-nation-building and concerned about government eavesdropping, even after the GOP took control of Congress."
Dan blames executive power, and I have to reiterate that I support a giant leap or two away from the cult of the presidency, and a number of hard-earned steps away from the politics of permanent crisis. But I'm not sure we can get there by insisting, as Dan does, that "the presidency itself, regardless of whether a Clinton, Bush, or Obama occupies the Oval Office, has become the gravest threat to Americans’ liberties."
I am heartened by Dan's conclusion that, as far as the tea parties are concerned, "one has to start with whatever resources are at hand." I think this is a more optimistic view than the one I heard when last we spoke. And for good reason: the faux-imperial presidency is looking worse than ever, and Republicans have a unique opportunity to present and sustain a clear alternative.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
The gravest threat to Americans' liberties is the enormous size of the Federal government. We tend to think liberty is eroded by attacks on privacy, free speech, gun rights, etc., but so much of liberty is just about being left alone to live our own lives and solve our own problems. The sheer scope of Federal authority over the smallest details of our lives produces such severe distortion of incentives that our economy is crippled and the state is deeply and structurally corrupted.
The Republicans behave badly upon ascending to Federal office precisely because they have attained that office, and are subject to all the aforementioned incentives. Only a radical diminution in the size and scope of the Federal government can mitigate these effects. Given the rewards for keeping it large, this will happen only when that government exceeds its ability to tax and borrow to feed its appetite, or when an outside power forces it to back down. Not until then.
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
Daniel, if the problem is federal authority over the smallest details of our lives -- and I agree that is a problem -- I don't see government's continued ability to tax and borrow as central. One reason our government can borrow so recklessly and unsustainably is that it doesn't seem to impact our daily lives, though of course it does. Insolvency might force radical reductions in Social Security payouts, or other major expenditures, but it won't save us from niggling regulations that don't cost anything too impose except a measure of our freedom, our time, and our sanity.
What I hope is that we can gradually reduce the scope of federal power, a little bit at a time, and that the little changes at up to significant reduction. I cannot conceive of radical changes that aren't co-opted by the establishment.
Jun '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
People often speak of term limits on Congress as a solution to excessive government power. I agree, but with a stipulation. Term limits must also apply to bureaucrats. With term limits on Congress and the Presidency and lifetime job security for the bureaucrats, whom do you think will end up with the most power? We have run this great country into a real quandry. Entire Federal departments need to be eliminated completely, Education and Energy. Others need to be reduced by 50 to 75 percent. We must stop and reverse the attitude that government is formed to solve our problems.
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
Cdor,
If I may quote from the Department of Energy's Wikipedia page: "Its responsibilities include the nation's nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor production for the United States Navy, energy conservation, energy-related research, radioactive waste disposal, and domestic energy production."
Are you seriously proposing that we simply eliminate all of that? At least some of it seems rather important, right?
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
Conor: The point is that there is overlap between departments. For instance, doesn't Defense handle nuclear weaponry and nuclear reactors for ships and subs, too? If not, couldn't it? Doesn't the Interior Dept. have a hand in chemical and radioactive waste disposal? If not, couldn't it? Doesn't the EPA and Interior have significant oversight of domestic energy production and energy conservation (whatever the heck that is)? If not, couldn't they? What about the Transportation Dept.? Couldn't they handle some of this? (They no doubt do.) Eliminating redundancy is different than eliminating actual tasks and responsibilities.
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
Scott,
I have no objection to eliminating redundancy, or to spending cuts, or to cutting government -- like you and Cdor, I'd go much farther than any Congressional majority or president. And if "eliminate the Department of Energy" means moving its necessary functions to a different part of the bureaucracy, I'll go along if there's a compelling case that it'll be more efficient.
But that isn't eliminating "completely" as Cdor argued, and it isn't even shrinking so much as reorganizing, at least when compared to just eliminating unnecessary stuff in the DOE.
Success at significantly cutting government requires realism. Too often, I hear people cavalierly talk about the wholesale elimination of some department, as if it's budget could just be zeroed out, and we'd save that amount. Actually, specific cuts are very difficult because utter waste is a relatively small percentage of our overall spending, and for every indefensible program like ethanol subsidies, there are a dozen expensive government functions that are pretty important, like managing the nuclear arsenal. So how about we keep the DOE, eliminate ethanol subsidies, raise the SS retirement age, and dramatically scale back the War on Drugs, just for starters.
May '10
Re: Life After Statism for the GOP?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that ratio there: I'd say the waste-vs-essentials ratio is closer to one to one rather than one to twelve. Also, cutting departments is essential to shrinking government because an excess of departments begets competition among departments for funding, which incentivizes inefficiency, the discovery still more "essential" functions, and "getting in on" functions already covered by other departments.
.....and I'd say we made more strides in nuclear energy before the Dept. of Energy than after it, and I'd say our children were better educated before the Dept. of Education than after it.