Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Big Problem with Reform Conservatism: Culture of Government
I just listened to Peter Wehner’s excellent portrayal of Reform Conservatism in the latest Powerline podcast. I have no problems with the movement’s goal to reform public institutions and programs to limit their size and cost. But the more I listen, the more I couldn’t help feeling the Reformicons have one huge problem: they embraces the culture of government. Its culture is government. Basically, it shares the liberal ethos.
Look, I don’t want to sound too harsh. These wonks want to do good policy. I like Reformicons, their desire to get the market mechanism into programs, to make them smaller, more cost-effective. If I were President, I would hire these wonks to fix any troublesome programs I want fixed. But there is something askew about their penchant for government intervention, seemingly anywhere and everywhere.
Ronald Reagan famously said: Government is not the solution, government is the problem. Reagan stressed personal responsibility, the limited role of government—to those activities government can do well. There is the individual realm, there is the public realm. But these guys say: Government is here to help with your problems. It is the nature of the world today. Government has a moral duty to help. But we will use the conservative way to help you.
See the big difference in animating spirits? The difference is not in the weeds, what strategy to use on any specific program. It’s in the soul, the culture, but don’t just wave that off. I argue that Reform conservatism has no chance of delivering limited government. More likely, we’ll get that oxymoronic disaster, the so-called “Big Government Conservatism”. Reaganism, on the other hand, has a slim chance (sans Republican Senate leaders named Baker).
Let’s see what reform conservatives want to reform the conservative way.
- Reform higher education, check.
- Reform the entitlement state, check.
- Reform taxes, check.
- Incentivize work, check.
- Proactive conservative policies to weaken unions in education, check.
OK, we can argue over strategy, specifics, but not a problem so far.
Then Wehner dove into what conservatives should be paying more attention to: the dislocation of workers stemming from advances in technology and from globalization. Liberals focus on these issues; conservatives should be too. For instance, What do you do for people in their mid-40s, mid-50s, who lose their jobs, who are difficult to retrain?
My immediate reaction: Why is it the government’s role to do things for people when the economy changes? Are these adults helpless, disabled, that they need conservative wonks to jump in with programs to help them? The government is here to help you, poor victims of technology and globalization. My first presumption is that those adults would help themselves to help their families, not that the government should jump in.
Next, Michael Gerson’s (reform conservative) premise that economic growth only benefits those with the knowledge/human capital to succeed in a modern economy. Thus Gerson advocates active, effective reform government at every level — see what I mean by big government conservatism? — to help those without the knowledge/human capital to succeed. Maybe a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats, after all. So, those without the human and social capital—What do you do with these people? Wehner thinks government has to get involved: in education, work, family, and social mobility. It’s the way of the world. Government has a moral duty to help.
My reaction: A rising tide does lift all boats. That’s mankind’s history since the advent of capitalism. Why is it different this time? Singapore’s peasant immigrants and their children have all been lifted by rising tides into their ultra-modern economy. I come from an emerging market where rising tides do lift all boats, albeit not by the same degree. Why is America different? What are these reform conservatives talking about? Then it occurred to me that the last 25 years have been heydays for illegal immigration.
Of course, a rising tide cannot lift all boats if at the same time you are feeding your economy loads and loads of poor, illiterate, illegals. Maybe that should be considered before jumping in with more “active, reform government at every level.” In the last 30 years, the economy has created, what, about 40-45 million new jobs, a lot of them filled by illegals. The economy has had to adjust to the shock of a steady stream of poor low-wage illegals. Of course, it seems like the rising tide has not lifted all boats in the same way as before. Maybe that should be looked at before you jump in with new intervention and programs. Stop this reflex for more government intervention. Stop with this culture of government.
Wehner extols three reform conservative policies that have been successful: policing (Guiliani); welfare reform/work requirement (Republican Congress); and the drug initiative (William Bennett). I applaud the successes. As I said, I have no problem with conservative methods. I welcome them. It is the underlying culture, the culture of government, the “government is here for you” mentality, that suffuses the ambitious, underlying spirit of reform conservatism that’s scary.
I agree with Wehner that we are all conservatives. But reform conservatism needs to think further about what their underlying culture is, what delimits the government’s realm, instead of this airy, ambitious, and elastic domain they reserve for government intervention that speaks to a culture of government they seem to share with liberals. That’s their big problem. Also, it would be nice if they expound more on the importance of self-help and personal responsibility.
Finally, look at what’s happened to the successes that Wehner applauded: policing, welfare, drugs. They are all either imploding or have imploded. I submit that’s because the culture of government is also the culture of the victim. Within such a cultural milieu, even the greatest, widely beneficial success (policing) can be subverted by emotions unleashed by victimhood.
Aside: As far as I know, America is the only place where the culture of limited government is alive and well. The culture of government is prevalent in most countries, albeit in different, nuanced ways, certainly in Asia (I am from there) and Latin America, Africa, and Europe (where I have visited). So, for those who asked in my other immigration/culture post what’s so special about American culture, the ethos of limited government is one, (among many others) which immigrants may not share and would vote accordingly.
Published in Domestic Policy
I haven’t listened to the podcast. Might not have to now. Sounds like a tired re-hash of the two-party money cult, but admittedly so.
These guys are particularly uh loathsome in that they seek to dress up the progressive beast in conservative clothes and then take it to the right dinner parties.
One way or another, I will not dine wherever it feeds.
And if this sounds familiar, that’s because the only new thing about “Reform Conservatism” is the name. So we are Goldwater Republicans. Reagan will have to wait.
I hear where you are coming from but I can’t agree that they are “loathsome.” We need everybody to win. They are wonks and there is a place for wonks even in say a Ted Cruz Administration. But they have to be reined in by a conservative leader because my sense is, as I said in the post, they have an airy, elastic, overly ambitious notion of the government’s domain–they don’t know where to stop. I do share some of your frustration though regarding their apparent eagerness to launch more government into solving every problem they perceive to come down the pike, real or not.
A rising does not in fact appear to be lifting all boats.
The issue as to what to do with left behinds is an increasingly large social problem.
That said, the thing that annoys me the most is the child tax credit to pay illegal aliens to have anchor babies. (rubio-lee) That sounds so super special.
You bring up illegals but my point is that the data on wages in the media (overall average wages) do not take into account the influx of the illegals. If you separate out the workforce by appropriate groups, you’ll see that wages have risen for all groups. See Edward Conard’s book (Unintended Consequences). I imagine he is Republican Establishment (Senior Manager at Bain Capital) but he has an interesting analysis of economic developments (smart guy). The side benefit is that you will get a sense of how the Establishment thinks.
You keep saying “we” but including them. Sorry, that’s where I am. Last wonk we got excited about is pro-amnesty and gave us a budget that *never* balances.
I was you ten years ago. The answer is no.
Ok, I hear you. Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Jindal, Fiorina. Who would you not vote for?
It depends. There are persons I would not vote for. There are parties I would not vote for. We’ll see how things are going in 2016. If the GOP insists on being a party I would not vote for, then that is how it is.
Please spare me the lecture you are warming up to deliver. The GOP has worked hard to divest itself of its base, and that’s how it is.
Thanks. My choice is Cruz or Walker. But I’ll consider the others too.
I think those are both good men.
A rising tide does indeed lift all boats, but when it comes to economic welfare, all boats do not get lifted equally. Here the analogy falters. A rising economy provides all with opportunities, but all will not be in equal positions to take advantage of the opportunities. In my upbringing, the American advantage was about opportunity and it was the individual’s responsibility to seize opportunity.
“Reform conservatism” is not conservatism as all, any more than “crony capitalism” is about capitalism. Reform conservatism is about tweaking more and bigger government.
Excellent post.
“Reform conservatism” seems to me to be about exchanging one set of government overlords for another.
Thank you for the thoughtful breakout on that podcast and “Reform conservatism”. That was my reaction also.
Great post. I can’t even listen to these types. It’s like hearing how we should retrofit the lifeboats as the ship sinks. Plus everything BDB said…
One very vexing fact: Any time new proposals hit Congress, Democrats and lobbyists get involved and even if they start out as ‘good ideas’ they end up screwing us again. I’d like to see so -called reform conservatives reform by eliminating agencies, laws and programs for a while before we meddle again.
Politics is the art of the possible, successful politicians understand this.
Reagan was a successful politician in large part because he had an uncanny insight into the American people. He reformed the tax code, he did not scrap it. He reformed Social Security, he did not end it. He understood that we will have a tax code and if we do have one, it should reward rather than penalize that which is admirable. He understood that we will have a Social Security system and if we must, it should be solvent.
There seems to be a utopian strain of conservatives who believe we can remake the world to our liking simply because we want to. The idea it is possible to radically shrink government and get rid of entire departments and agencies without first changing the political environment (by that I mean the expectations of the American people) is sheer fantasy. We have to bring conservative, market oriented reforms to the government before we have a chance of truly shrinking it. Entitlements are the best example. We all agree they represent the greatest threat to our nation’s fiscal future but the reality is, Social Security/Medicare are with us for the foreseeable future. There are simply too many people who have (wisely or not) structured their lives around or in anticipation of these programs. Reforming them to be more market based not only helps lower the short term fiscal damage they will do but help show that market based solutions are better for individuals than centrally planned solutions.
The tax code is another great example. I understand that my preferred solution of repealing the 16th Amendment and ending the federal government’s ability to directly tax the American people is not politically possible but that does not mean I cannot support reforming the current system. Accepting the reality that you get less of that which you tax and more of that which you subsidize, is a great starting point for such reform.
The bottom line is, Utopia does not and cannot exist and both conservatives and liberals need to understand that.
Thanks for the lecture Klaatu. I’ve heard that all before. Problem with “the art of the possible” conservatives is that they are politically lazy and continually taken advantage of. The idea that we can wait to change the political culture is another way of perpetuating the current one. It’s more excuses to do little; to start small and to compromise between small and minuscule, and be taken to town by Democrats all the while, holding the conceit that these incrementalists are accomplishing something while we are being sold down the river. They feebly paddle backwards while the current takes us inexorably toward the waterfall.They aren’t even paddling backwards. They just dangle their oars in the water and pretend to row.
They claim we should be patient and vote for them, and once inside the beltway they claim they have a mandate. They are moderates and that’s what the people want because they were elected. That’s at best. Usually they just thumb their noses at conservatives outright, like the current Congressional leaders are doing.
The absolutely insulting idea that we are somehow utopian dreamers when we just want some progress is sickening. Some action is in order, not empty promises, not tepid policy tweaks, not the “now, now, utopians, you are being unrealistic” lectures.
A sure sign that someone is a statist collaborator is when they try to portray their opponents as extremists when all we want is common sense.
Reagan accomplished nothing? The Gingrich Congress? W? The current House leadership? If you believe any of these things, you are delusional.
The problem is your expectations are out of alignment with what is possible. The reason we still have a federal Department of Education (or Energy, or ….) is not because the conservatives we have elected to office are too moderate or want invitations to the right cocktail parties but the same reason we still have a PBS, that is the American people overwhelmingly want them.
The only laziness here is the intellectual laziness that leads some to believe the whole country (or even a sizable plurality) agrees with them on what constitutes common sense.
Yes, I think we should aim big like when Reagan tried to get rid of the Dept of Education but was stymied by Senate Republicans led by Baker.
The Reform Conservatives see themselves as operating within the constraints of what’s possible in “today’s world”. I don’t mind that too much on specific aims because it becomes an empirical, strategic issue (whether something is possible) that can be debated among allies. My problem is that the scope of where they want government to operate appears to be the whole liberal universe–knows no bounds–and they seem unaware that’s what they are pitching, so eager to tinker are they.
Klaatu: I have no problems with reforms. On specific objectives, allies can debate the strategic/empirical issues. Similarly with what is, is not possible.
My problem is where you delimit the scope of government. Or is there no limit? Oh, that’s just today’s world. The people want government to do everything, so here’s our conservative way. That’s a big assumption, also the liberal premise. It is not utopianism, not to surrender on that level. For instance, do you want to gear up for “active, effective, reform government at every level” (Gerson) to help those without sufficient, social/human capital? I bet you can’t even define/measure social/human capital in terms of the thresholds deemed inadequate, and how to get those measures to be dynamically adequate. It reminds me of the war on poverty. How’s that coming along?
I predict your way gives us bigger and bigger government. That’s essentially the Republican Establishment’s modus operandi the last 50 years, just fine-tuned. But if your fundamental principle admits no limits to the scope of government, you have no chance for limited government. And if you think bigger and bigger govt can be made efficient, look who’s delusional.
I abhor utopianism. I think Reagan showed the way and he educated with Reaganism. However, more than 8 years of Reaganism are needed.
Nah, all sorts of people try to portray their opponents as extremists.
Some do so by describing those they disagree with as “statist collaborators,” for example.
I predict your way gives us bigger and bigger government. That’s essentially the Republican Establishment’s modus operandi the last 50 years, just fine-tuned. But if your fundamental principle admits no limits to the scope of government, you have no chance for limited government. And if you think bigger and bigger govt can be made efficient, look who’s delusional.
Bigger and bigger government as measured…? The Republican Congress in 1995 oversaw a lowering of federal government spending as a percentage of GOP, the current Republican House has lowered (in real terms) federal spending each of the past 4 years.
Are you arguing it is better to advocate ending entitlements rather than reforming them? Better not to seek to reform the tax code? Whether we like it or not, both of those things are here to stay for the foreseeable future.
This “Reform Conservative” stuff is somewhere between plea bargaining and granting indulgences.
It’s Neville Chamberlain scolding us for our lack of faith.
The numbers on federal spending as % GDP and per capita and debt as % GDP are above. (Note: Debt and outlays per capita for 2015 are not available, so I have used 2014 data. The first column is baseline CBO data plus their 2025 projection).
If you think the numbers are good for a victory lap, be my guest. If you are really serious about numbers, you should also add the data on unfunded liabilities for the major entitlement programs.
I have not rejected any reformist positions on entitlements. I have not said eliminate entitlements or nothing. You have not heard me at all, neither what I said in my post nor in my last reply to your comment.
Has anyone actually won elections on the “Burn it all down!” model of conservatism and implemented it? I hear that a lot, but I want to know if it will actually work. Politicians are solely in the business of being reelected, after all.
Does it bother you so much that I don’t like the 98% solution?
I don’t know who is saying “burn it all down” and my post is certainly not saying it. If you hear people saying it, it’s probably out of frustration with the cynical Republican Party of Benedict Boehner and Benedict McConnell.
Reagan didn’t say burn it all down. His view was: “govt is not the solution; govt is the problem.” That’s is the culture he promoted such that when Clinton took office Clinton said “the era of big govt is over.” But that turned out to be short-lived.
Koolie, I’m right there with you.
Yeah, I had a feeling that’s where you were coming from.
If you think the numbers are good for a victory lap, be my guest. If you are really serious about numbers, you should also add the data on unfunded liabilities for the major entitlement programs.
No one is arguing your numbers are great but they are not relevant to the numbers I cited with the exception of showing the decrease in the relative size of government from 1990-now. Look deeper into those numbers and you will see the effects of GOP congresses.
I have not rejected any reformist positions on entitlements. I have not said eliminate entitlements or nothing. You have not heard me at all, neither what I said in my post nor in my last reply to your comment.
Than what is your point? Reform conservatives are generally concerned with reforming entitlements and the tax code, with some interest in education as well.
“Burn it all down” can only work for conservatives if conservatives start getting the impression that “there’s always the next election” is a fool’s errand and a nonstarter.
Jon Ritzheimer’s little stunt in front of a Phoenix mosque on Friday shows that conservatives are getting a little too close for comfort on the “Burn it all down” front.
The original poster fails to understand one thing: there is no stomach in the American electorate for eliminating many of those programs. There is no way to get elected and there is no way to uphold one’s public standing if you either promoted eliminating or actually eliminating them. The best a practical politiian can do is promote reform and through reform shrink the scope. I’m in my 50’s. I’ve heard about cutting government programs for thirty years, and here we still are. I advocated it in my more idealistic days. Real cutting is a pipe dream, and it comes down to the American people. In the end the American people get what they want; they just don’t want to pay for it.