Whither Conservatism
The conservative movement--such that it is--has some real problems. David Brooks observed yesterday that the Republican party lacks a "coherent belief system." The key word there is "coherent." There are a core set of beliefs to which most movement conservatives claim to subscribe. Chief among these is a belief in "small government," which they tend to define as one that keeps taxes, regulation, and spending to a minimum.
In soundbite form, that sounds like a coherent governing philosophy. The problem, however, is in the implementation. The reality is that our government is about as small as it can feasibly be already, at least while providing the level of services and governance that people in an industrialized country desire and expect. There just aren't a lot of areas where spending can be cut without generating an outcry or putting the well-being of the country in peril.
Conservatives like to complain about wasteful porkbarrel spending (even when their own leaders are the worst offenders), but the reality is that this kind of discretionary spending adds up to only a small fraction of the federal budget. And conservative politicians have neither the desire nor the will to target the primary sources of government spending, i.e., entitlement programs and defense spending. Indeed, during the era of conservative supremacy--from 2000-2006--the Republican party managed to pass a huge new entitlement program (Medicare Part D) and dramatically increase defense spending. And President Bush's failed social security reform policy would have cost trillions of dollars to implement.
The reality is that citizens of First World countries expect a certain minimal level of government services. They expect the government to build and maintain infrastructure. They expect the government to provide for the defense of the nation. They expect there to be at least a minimal social safety net (Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.), and they expect the government to help facilitate access to health care and education. With the exception of defense spending, people in the United States already get much less in the way of government services than the citizens of most other First World countries. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Many lack health insurance. Many schools are terrible. And public higher education costs are soaring.
It is simply not politically feasible (and it never will be) to reduce this already low level of services in any significant way. The American people will not stand for it. And as result, the whole thrust of the American conservative movement in rendered incoherent. Unable to reduce spending, they nevertheless continue to aggressively cut taxes and deregulate, rending the federal government nearly bankrupt and incompetent at the same time.
That is a recipe for epic failure, not competent governance. We already have the lowest tax rates, the lowest service levels, and the most lax regulation of any industrialized nation. Which is why Goldwater conservatism is a political philosophy better suited for a Scandinavian opposition party than an American one.
In soundbite form, that sounds like a coherent governing philosophy. The problem, however, is in the implementation. The reality is that our government is about as small as it can feasibly be already, at least while providing the level of services and governance that people in an industrialized country desire and expect. There just aren't a lot of areas where spending can be cut without generating an outcry or putting the well-being of the country in peril.
Conservatives like to complain about wasteful porkbarrel spending (even when their own leaders are the worst offenders), but the reality is that this kind of discretionary spending adds up to only a small fraction of the federal budget. And conservative politicians have neither the desire nor the will to target the primary sources of government spending, i.e., entitlement programs and defense spending. Indeed, during the era of conservative supremacy--from 2000-2006--the Republican party managed to pass a huge new entitlement program (Medicare Part D) and dramatically increase defense spending. And President Bush's failed social security reform policy would have cost trillions of dollars to implement.
The reality is that citizens of First World countries expect a certain minimal level of government services. They expect the government to build and maintain infrastructure. They expect the government to provide for the defense of the nation. They expect there to be at least a minimal social safety net (Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc.), and they expect the government to help facilitate access to health care and education. With the exception of defense spending, people in the United States already get much less in the way of government services than the citizens of most other First World countries. Our infrastructure is crumbling. Many lack health insurance. Many schools are terrible. And public higher education costs are soaring.
It is simply not politically feasible (and it never will be) to reduce this already low level of services in any significant way. The American people will not stand for it. And as result, the whole thrust of the American conservative movement in rendered incoherent. Unable to reduce spending, they nevertheless continue to aggressively cut taxes and deregulate, rending the federal government nearly bankrupt and incompetent at the same time.
That is a recipe for epic failure, not competent governance. We already have the lowest tax rates, the lowest service levels, and the most lax regulation of any industrialized nation. Which is why Goldwater conservatism is a political philosophy better suited for a Scandinavian opposition party than an American one.
posted by A.L. at 11:59 AM
9 Comments:
It sounds to me like the Republicans are for the kind of low-tax, low-regulation, low-services governance that we see in places where they have extractive economies (oil, coal, agricultural).
AL- I don't know what you were smoking at the Obama victory party, but it must have been good stuff.
Once you sober up, you might take a look at the $54 trillion deficit projected by former Comptroller General David Walker (increasing with every bailout and stimulus package). This is a government as small as it feasibly can be?
Back when change occurred slowly, if at all, in most places in the world, conservatism made a certain amount of sense, especially for those who were happy with the status quo. Think of conservatives as the "don't rock the boat" party, and there's something to be said for that.
When the boat is the Titanic, however, worrying about rocking the boat is just plain wrong-headed.
The pace of change in the modern world means that conservatives are doomed to come in last in a red queen's race.
To support the population and interlocked global society we have now achieved without widespread hardship and inevitable strife will require fundamental and extensive changes that are even now causing skull implosions among conservatives. (Conservatives' heads do not, as is mistakenly claimed, "explode" -- that would require something inside trying to get out -- but, in fact, implode due to a vacuum of ideas inside and the crushing pressure of external change.)
Personally, I think a "don't rock to boat" approach to certain problems (eg, the Middle East) would have served us well over the last 8 years.
Anyway, what is the liberal solution to the Titanic problem- save the iceberg?
MLS,
The liberal solution is to crank the pumps to max and man the lifeboats. I see you are back from wherever you went little the wiser, still asking stupid questions.
The middle east remains a time-bomb, and a "don't rock the boat" approach to it isn't a long-term strategy that is likely to work. On the other hand, the Bush administration approach, which was to torpedo the boat, does not seem to have helped the situation.
c2h50h
Too. . . many . . . mixed . . . metaphors. My tiny conservative brain is exploding. I mean imploding.
I see the orgasmic experience of Obama's election hasn't made you any more pleasant.
MLS,
If you want to see me be "more pleasant", ditch your lame approach of asking lame, stupid, leading questions. It's fine once in a while, but if it's the only thing you do, it gets tiresome.
I don't find myself in an orgasmic state over Obama's win. More like guarded optimism.
c2h50h
Are you saying that your unpleasantness is my fault? So far today you have suggested that all conservatives are morons and accused a Democratic Senator of treason. I don't think that had anything to do with my questions, lame as they may be.
MLS,
Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Last I heard, Israel wasn't an enemy.
A co-worker, asked about my worst fault, once responded: "He doesn't suffer fools gladly."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home