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
Why can’t we at least get rid of the unconstitutional National Raisin Reserve?
[Redacted for CoC]
Using federal politics to fight the expansion of the federal government is a fool’s errand. If an organization is run well, it will be effective. If an organization is effective, the people who it benefits will celebrate it and want to give it increased responsibility. The way to fight federal over-reach is to show that the government functions we disapprove of can be replicated as well or better at state and local levels, where people can either a) vote with their feet, b) have a personal impact without having to be billionaires, c) focus on specific local circumstances.
Right now we have a tremendous opportunity. The feds look bumbling and clueless, and Republicans control massive swathes of state and local governments. If we can prove that the states and localities can be effective, then people will be supportive when those same states and localities start pushing back on federal prerogatives. Madisonian checks and balances, y’all.
[Redacted for CoC]
Okay, how about a less controversial framing:
“Is it likely that voters will vote for a candidate promising to do less for them in a world where short- and medium-term economic and security outlooks appear to be uncertain and fragile? Moreover, is it likely that voters will re-elect a candidate who delivers on these promises if those policies do not result in an immediate resumption of economic growth that has very few negative side-effects and leaves few people behind?”
How many voters can dance on the head of Boehner’s pin?
Nothing will change if the status quo carries no consequences. If you believe in market forces, then you should be able to view a little creative destruction as a part of creation — in fact, necessary. The fact that the GOP has lost its way is history, not probability, and cannot be changed. Where they go from here matters, and we have failed to capture their attention.
But we’re working on it.
Exactly.
Lost its way? When was it any other way? When did even Ronald Reagan cut anything? Creative destruction in politics is sure loser. Conservatism understood properly advocates evolution, not revolution.
All the ones that voted in 2014. Boehner is the status quo, as you say.
I’m all for creative destruction. Go nuts. But we shouldn’t be blind to what may well happen when we change strategies, nor should ideological priors prevent us from questioning the efficacy of same.
How would you go about creating and fostering a culture of anti-government. I’m very curious as to how this would be done.
You create an alternative, and there are plenty to choose from. Local governments. Civil Society institutions. Corporate paternalism instead of governmental paternalism. It’s just a matter of resources, marketing, and time.
Let’s don’t lump in the dirty Tea Party wave victories with the ideologically pure GOP dictatorship. Angle and O’Donnell didn’t win, so none of the Tea Party contributions from 2008 count, remember? Wackobirds. Hobbits. ‘Crush the Tea Party”.
That’s destructive destruction, and they’ll pay for it. We all will. What are your alternatives — budgets that literally never balance and a human wave invasion? No thanks.
Admittedly, those aren’t the greatest of options that you presented. But I’m willing to venture that those options are considerably better than having conservatives take the approach Jon Ritzheimer used on Friday in front of a Phoenix mosque.
Non sequitur. Oh, and wrong.
Let’s don’t lump in the dirty Tea Party wave victories with the ideologically pure GOP dictatorship. Angle and O’Donnell didn’t win, so none of the Tea Party contributions from 2008 count, remember? Wackobirds. Hobbits. ‘Crush the Tea Party”.
That’s destructive destruction, and they’ll pay for it. We all will. What are your alternatives — budgets that literally never balance and a human wave invasion? No thanks.
I don’t see anyone discounting Marco Rubio’s victory.
But then again, many here consider him to be part of the ‘Establishment.’ This merely highlights the lack of meaning either of these terms. My favorite definition of the Tea Party is, Republican primary voters and the best definition for Republican establishment, is Republican I do not like.
Anti-government is another red herring term. I don’t know what it is with some Republicans. They are as bad as Democrats. Either/or thinking. We say to Democrats, lets reduce the welfare rolls, somehow some way. They are charged with being against poor people and want to eliminate needed programs.
Someone advocates reducing the military budget by 3% maybe re-ordering priorities to better reflect current threats, he’s an isolationist.
Someone wants to end the drug war and re-order police priorites, we are going to have drug addicts everywhere and children will all begin smoking pot (as though they can’t now).
Someone says we should stop the growth of government and this somehow is called anti-government.
It’s ridiculous.
Someone says we should stop the growth of government and this somehow is called anti-government.
It’s ridiculous.
Kinda like calling someone who wants to reform a government program a [Redacted for CoC].
No. Someone who claims his opponents want to burn down the house. [Redacted for CoC]
Hey, I was just asking what you wanted to DO, since you seem to be of the thought process that reducing the growth of government (SWIDT) should be a cultural as well as a fiscal imperative.
I know. You mention it on every thread.
No. Someone who claims his opponents want to burn down the house. [Redacted for CoC]
What does burning down a house have to do with statism? [Redacted for CoC]
Just flagging and moving on. [Redacted for CoC]
I am concerned with long-run trends. It is easy (and in my view useful only for PR purposes) to take any short period and say look this group has lowered outlays by 1 point of GDP, ignoring that the trend will reverse soon. I am not trying to convince you, but when I look at the long trend, I am inclined to give the Republicans a poor grade for their performance and strategy. Example, note that the CBO projections are baseline, yet already increasing, while Obamacare looks to become much more expensive than baseline. The long run debt and spending per person numbers look bad too.
“Hey, I was just asking what you wanted to DO, since you seem to be of the thought process that reducing the growth of government (SWIDT) should be a cultural as well as a fiscal imperative.”
Not sure I fully understand . I am just requiring that you not use the term like “anti-government” for those of us who merely wish to reduce our massive government by a small percentage, or those who want to stop borrowing money to finance the growth of government, which is basically a delayed tax on everyone, or even just stop the growth of government in relation to the private sector.
If you insist on using the term “anti-government” I would have to then think that your definition of government is something that must continue to grow faster than the private sector. This would result, ultimately, in a totalitarian state.
Good lord, people. Have we learned nothing from the past few days? Look, this is a great topic — is the Reformicon agenda a necessary adaptation to political reality or is it the camel’s nose under the tent to go right back to big-government conservatism? Great! Precisely the kind of conversations we should be having at Ricochet.
But c’mon — the baiting, the taunting. It’s too much. The sentiments here are perfectly legitimate — but let’s have these conversations on the merits.
I am concerned with long-run trends. It is easy (and in my view useful only for PR purposes) to take any short period and say look this group has lowered outlays by 1 point of GDP, ignoring that the trend will reverse soon. I am not trying to convince you, but when I look at the long trend, I am inclined to give the Republicans a poor grade for their performance and strategy.
In order to give the Republicans a grade, you need to distinguish their performance from the Democrats, no?
Let’s see now: The GOP has the most House members, state legislatures, and governorship since the 1920s, and has recovered nearly all lost Senate seats since 2006. And you say the GOP has “lost its way.”
OK.
Brad2971: I think what you are saying is that the Republican Establishment, donors, and their Chamber friends have decided that the base has nowhere to go. And regrettably, they were right in 2014. But even you cannot believe that’s a stable situation.
I can’t help feeling that the rock and the hard place is that the Republican Establishment needs competition, which will be bad for all in the short term.
The Democrats are so far left they are beyond the pale. But I thought we were talking strategic direction. Reforms are fine but my view is that the reform conservative vision I have heard so far suffers from a culture of government and seems ultimately to be the Republican Establishment’s strategy of the past 50-60 years, albeit fined tuned. So, my prediction was that reform conservatives will give us “big government conservatism” an ugly oxymoronic monster, if there is one.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are referring to as the ‘Republican Establishment of the past 50-60 years.’
As I have stated previously, my understanding is the Reformicons are generally interested in reforming entitlements, the tax code, and to a lesser extent education. Which of these suggests to you a ‘culture of government’? If not reform, what is your realistic, preferred solution? Leave these as they are?