Jonah Goldberg and others lament that Huck stands for "Big Government Conservatism," and his election would exile small-government conservatives. Here's Jonah today:
Huckabeeism is much less of a threat to the GOP (though I wouldn't want to say it's not a threat at all) than it is to conservatism. It is the job of "fusionist" conservatives to convince the socially conservative to be economically conservative as well. It is also their job to explain to the socially liberal but economically conservative folks why they should be socially conservative or at least welcome the socially conservative to our cause. Huckabeeism (if it turns out to be what folks like Andrew and I fear) threatens to unfuse fusionism as an operating political ideology. If the GOP wins on Big Government conservatism, then traditional small government conservatism could become politically homeless. I think Dreher and many others believe the time has finally come for exactly that and that this is their moment. They might be right about where we are politically, but I hope they're wrong.
I think it's completely fair to judge that Huckabee is no proponent of small government. But I'd really like the "small-government conservatives" to point to a single Republican president who has ever governed on small government conservatism, as opposed to merely paying lip service to the concept. Government was larger when Reagan left office than when he took office, and Reaganauts were reduced to saying that at least government hadn't grown as fast as it would have had Reagan not been president. Neither Bush did a thing for the small government cause, except pay it lip service. Well, let me restate: if reducing regulation is what you mean by "small government conservatism," then you'd have a case; but I think what most people mean by that term is "reducing the size of government" by reducing spending on it. And that is something Republican presidents have not done. And they have not done it because, for better or for worse, the people have not wanted it done.
My disgust with Bush and the late, unlamented Republican Congress is not that they spent so much money (though that's part of it). My real disgust is that they spent on credit. If the people want big government, then the politicians are going to give it to them, despite (in the GOP's case) their rhetorical pose against it. But if they're fiscally responsible, then they ought to pay for it, and not hide from the voters the cost of what they demand. If politicians told people that they can have this shiny new program, but they were going to have to give up something else, either in terms of a spending cut or a new tax, to get it, then government would limit itself naturally.
If "small government conservatives" had actually governed as such over the past generation, they might have a stronger anti-Huck case to make today. Small-government conservatism doesn't really exist. If Ron Paul were elected president, we'd see something significant happen on that front. But he's not going to be elected president. And there is not a single other Republican presidential candidate who is remotely credible on the small-government front.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod's right on the money on this one. I wouldn't vote for anyone at this point that promises a tax cut unless they told us what services/programs they plan to cut.
I, also, wouldn't vote for anyone who wants to put more money into the military until they tell us how to pay for it.
I have nothing but contempt for the spend through borrowing policies of this administration.
As for fusionism, it exists practically but not ideologically.
I disagree, Jim; I think the only place where fusionism resonates today is in almost entirely artificially constructed ideological environs--like, for example, the blogosphere--rather than in the actual political world. I think fusionism may well have had some purchase on real-world politics during the Cold War; but once communist tyranny disappeared as the antipode everyone could measure themselves against, arguments about whether our moderate welfare-state democratic government should or shouldn't act to lower interest rates on school loans or increase tax breaks for farmers could only be productively cast into a "conservative (=small government) vs. liberal (=big government)" format with the help of some genuine ideological arm-twisting, as well as some political scare-mongering.
I think people who think we need fusionism are just ideologically confused. Either you believe in individual freedom or you favor state control of society. I'm not denying there isn't a middle ground in effect, certainly I don't expect the government to be all of one thing or all of another—and even the most ideological have their pet preferences. But someone who wants to use the State to help farmers and students and the poor and the old and the young and... is a liberal (in principle). And someone who generally opposes using the government to implement their will is a conservative (in principle).
People who claim to be conservative but want to use state power are confused. The battle over government is about means, not ends. If Huckabee convinces evangelicals that the ends justify the means, they will seal their own fate.
Russell Arben Fox
I think fusionism may well have had some purchase on real-world politics during the Cold War; but once communist tyranny disappeared as the antipode everyone could measure themselves against, arguments about whether our moderate welfare-state democratic government should or shouldn't act to lower interest rates on school loans or increase tax breaks for farmers could only be productively cast into a "conservative (=small government) vs. liberal (=big government)" format with the help of some genuine ideological arm-twisting, as well as some political scare-mongering.
Yeah, almost no problem is solvable by looking at it through the lens of thinking less government is a good thing. (Nor is it solvable by thinking more government is a good thing, but, contrary to what the right things, the left does not actually believe 'Government should be bigger' as a philosophy.)
There are different legitimate ideological ways of looking at a problem, but 'Using the government is a bad thing' is not one of them, especially for, duh, people in charge of government policy.
And now all the legitimate ways of 'looking at problems' are very confusing, as almost everyone who wants to use the government to solve problems has end up on the left, and their ideologies have gotten all mixed together. Liberals and few different strains of progressives from different eras all jumbled up.
Here's one example: A combination of 'we must have racial equality', a liberal issue, and 'poor people can never get ahead', a progressive issue, has resulted in Affirmative Action, which attempts to lift poor black people out of poverty.
This is incredibly inane, as there are plenty of poor white people also stuck in poverty. Trying to 'equalize' the number of poor people across races is completely and utterly idiotic as a government policy.
But that's what happen when you just get a bunch of random ideologies all mixed together, instead of a progressive party arguing that poor people should be uplifted and a liberal party arguing that black people should have equal opportunities. Somehow, 'poor people' vs. 'black people', and 'uplift' vs. 'equality', got commingled and here we are.
But I don't blame the left, I blame the party that used to have the liberal issues and decided instead that all government was bad, that the most important 'liberty' was to not pay taxes, instead of everyone having the right to use the same water fountains.
Oh, and before anyone misreads the last line of mine, I am well aware of the Republican's past in supporting racial equality, which is exactly what I was talking about, and I meant that line to imply '...like they used to.' at the end, but rereading it I find it really doesn't. Sorry.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.