PJ O'Rourke said it best: "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
I read the whole thing but couldn't get past the sig-worthy part, which seemed to be the thesis in a way. IMO, What a "real" conservative would think he's there to do is shrink the federal government while making it more efficient, hence, not thinking what he is doing is wrong. SO, to write that a conservative sees govt. as bad, well, that is a major assumption that he briefs through in one paragraph. It needs at least a page or two to give the article credibility because without that lynchpin everything falls apart. Now, I can see a problem if a conservative gets into office, can't shrink the government and is stuck trying to govern something he thinks shouldn't be that big. But, that said, a liberal could get into office, and be stuck with a government he thinks is too small. Same problem, no? I guess the author is coming from a viewpoint that Conservatives think govt. is bad. Not so, I think. It's just a matter of degrees. Who thinks we should give all our money to the feds? Who thinks we should give none? Everyone who doesn't answer yes to those two falls somewhere into a spectrum. A communist could write a similar article about the Democrats and I think they would be wrong in the same way. I do like the part at the end where he suggests the way for the conservatives to govern well is... to become more liberal! It's like those guys who argue that the Dems should become more conservative to win elections, or, soccer players should be allowed to use their hands so that the game becomes more popular. heh?
Except I can't think of a single mainstream liberal who thinks dogmatically about "bigger government" or "higher taxes". Those are means to an end, not the end itself. Conversely, modern conservatism is all about "cutting taxes", for example, as an article of faith. Sen. Voinovich here in Ohio was roasted by conservative bloggers for voting against a recent Bush tax cut (or cut extension). Why did he vote against it? Because he said it wouldn't be fiscally responsible to do so in the face of growing deficits and war spending. He was similarly roasted for opposing Ohio's constitutional ban on gay marriage on practical grounds (as written, it invalidates virtually all domestic violence laws on the books). Given a budget surplus and healthy government programs, I think it'd be very easy to pass a tax cut in a Democratic legislature.
I see what you're saying. But I disagree that modern conservatism is all about cutting taxes, at least in theory. I think it is about releasing power (and money) back to the people; smaller govt. and less taxes are the means to the end. Now, that is in theory. How it works in a practical sense is something else entirely, as your example suggests.
Repped. Two sentences from PJ are better than the entire, interminable article that was first linked.
Nice to know you drank the kool-aid. It's been the Republicans who have been the ones passing the laws that make government bigger since 1994. But you're right, they have released plenty of money and power back to the top 1% of the population at the expense of the other 99%.
Even libertarians believe in the existence of government. Government in and of itself isn't inherently "bad", it just needs to be constantly watched. I think the quote works better if you replace "conservatives" with "anarchists".
I think anyone with half a brain realizes that, by the definitions used by the author, most Reps aren't conservatives. Not nearly.
Feh. He's DOA anyway. By the way, I've been stocking up on "Steele for US Senate" stickers for my eventual run in '18 (we share a last name)
I'd imagine this guy must think that Libertarians really would suck at governing. On the other hand, based on his logic, he must think that socialists and communists, as well as dictators who want to have control over every aspect of their society, would do a great job.
I'm pretty sure Kennedy did this, although it may have been deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy.
As he points out in his article, the repeated failures of communist states might have more to do with the impossibility of getting from point A to point B. This isn't about the legitimacy of conservative or libertarian thought, it's about how no politician who "doesn't believe in government" will ever be able to successfully govern a "liberal" government. You can't take an even moderately "liberal" government like ours and turn it into a "conservative" government by electing conservatives. It's rather like the fact that Soviet Russia was never going to become truly Marxist - it couldn't. An existing authoritarian power structure can't be undone that easily. Naming a Marxist dictator doesn't suddenly make that position "not dictator".
I hear you. THe problem is in the statement that conservatives don't believe in government. It's just not true. That would be an anarchist. THey believe in less government than liberals, just as liberals believe in less government than communists. It's a spectrum, not black and whites. And that's where the logic breaks down.
I think Grover Norquist and his crowd would be startled to read that statement. It was Norquist who declared that he didn't want to eliminate the federal budget, he just wanted to shrink it to the point where it could be "drowned it in a bath tub". Inspite of his recent legal troubles, Norquist remains very influential in national GOP circles. Also, people who believed in government wouldn't be so eager to take Social Security out of the Federal Government. It's one of the most successful government programs in US history, and the logical reasons for radically changing it can only be ideological. Finally, how often do conservatives actually govern conservatively when they actually obtain power?
It's funny that the liberal capacity for nuance ends abruptly when it comes to appraising conservatives.