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
Klaatu: I retrieve 2 paragraphs from my post on “Culture of Government”.
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. In work, family, and social mobility, government has to get involved. Government has a moral duty to help. But we will use the conservative way to help you.
The first para is Reaganism. The second para is culture of government.
I have a sneaking feeling you have not read my post. Give it a shot if you have some time. Then we won’t be talking past each other.
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.
As I mentioned previously, Reagan went on to reform the tax code and entitlements.
But these guys say: Government is here to help with your problems. It is the nature of the world today. In work, family, and social mobility, government has to get involved. Government has a moral duty to help. But we will use the conservative way to help you.
As I also said previously, these guys accept as a reality that the government will be involved in taxation, Social Security and Medicare. Just like Reagan did. If it is to be involved, it should be done in the most beneficial and least harmful manner possible.
So, an evil statist collaborator? Maybe I should add that to my business card? Since I do work for the Great Satan, that’s not too far off I guess. I prefer kippered herring to red, though.
More seriously, I was genuinely curious if we have a model for the direct rollback approach, that goes for eliminating departments and cutting benefits, has been successfully implemented. Even unpopular agencies like the TSA seem to be immune to defunding, though, and the government entitlements seem untouchable. There seems to be debate on whether Reagan was this in reality as well as rhetoric. I know that Harper in Canada has started regulatory sunset, which is amazing and should start happening everywhere.
That’s an important point/key. So, somebody has to get that point through to the American people. I certainly don’t see the Republican Party of Boehner/McConnell (whom I increasingly view as the two Benedicts of 2014) up to the job.
I think Reaganite conservatism with its ideological focus on big government as the problem has the better chance of convincing people that limited government is first and foremost the better choice (on its own terms), and secondarily, because we all don’t want to pay for big, bloated government and we don’t want to rack up debt for our kids and grandkids either.
Listening to the Wehner podcast, I came away thinking the reformicon’s rather ambitious culture of government (“government is here to help, anywhere and as we perceive your need”) message is precisely going down the wrong road.
Good post. I agree with some of your worries. While Sen. Lee has been crowned king wonk of the reformicons, I think I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt due to the way he got to the Senate – challenging a moderate incumbent Republican Senator.
But I would agree with you on many of the others.
I like Sen Mike Lee, but I was analyzing the ideological or cultural underpinnings of reform conservatism, not any one person.
Manny (#64) summarizes the current conundrum well. People get what they want but they do not want to pay. Any sane political party has to cut through that fog.
Listening to the Powerline podcast (people should listen), I analyse reform conservatism along two dimensions: (1) reforms (a priori, that’s positive); and (2) the scope for government intervention (dislocation, work, family, social mobility etc; ambitiously open-ended).
Dimension (1) is not controversial.
Dimension (2) is where they are overly expansive and fundamentally surrender to the liberal premise. Here, I think they have to be reined in or they have to rein themselves in and not get carried away. Here, I am Reaganite and skeptical about overweening govt and its ambitions to go help where it does not belong. Here is where reform conservatives are likely to lead to “big government conservatism.”
Reaganism starts with an ideological boundary to keep govt within its natural limits, then throws 20 wonks into the arena to do their efficiency pac-man best (dimension 1). The culture of reform conservatism has no ideological boundary for govt, it seems.