Posted on 01/02/2004 7:50:49 PM PST by Pokey78
The Republican Party has a problem this election year. It's the governing party, but it lacks a governing philosophy.
The G.O.P. used to have a governing philosophy: reducing the size of the state. This was a useful goal because it was the one thing all Republican factions could agree upon. The business community wanted to reduce the public sector because it stifled growth. Social conservatives wanted to shrink the nanny state because it produced dependency. Libertarians and populists wanted to reduce government because it gave too much power to bureaucratic elites.
But reducing the size of government can no longer be Republicans' animating principle. In the first place, many of the worst excesses of government have been addressed. It's harder to argue that government programs reward bad behavior after welfare reform. It's harder to argue that government stifles economic growth after a generation of tax-rate reduction and the awesome boom of the 1990's.
But the main reason reducing the size of government can't be the party's animating principle is that Republicans have no credibility on this subject. During the Reagan years, Republicans tried to cut the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling Congress. In 1995, Republicans tried to reduce the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling the White House. Now Republicans control everything, and over the past three years the size of government has still increased, not even counting the war on terror.
Republicans have learned through hard experiences that most Americans do not actually want their government sharply cut. Voters are skeptical of government, but they elect candidates who promise solutions for their problems, not ones who tear down departments. They do not respond to politicians whose primary message is "No, no, no."
With its old governing philosophy obsolete, the Republican Party is adrift domestically. On Capitol Hill, Republicans lack a set of goals to steer by. At the White House, the president speaks idealistically on foreign policy, but prosaically on domestic affairs. The foreign policy members of his cabinet look big; the domestic policy members look small. That's not only because the personalities are different, it's because the domestic cabinet members have been given less ambitious jobs to do.
Meanwhile, corporate lobbyists have jumped into the vacuum. If principles aren't going to guide the Republican Party, the opportunists are happy to take control.
Fortunately, there is one Republican leader who, at least at one point, recognized that the 21st-century G.O.P. can no longer be the party of Barry Goldwater. That's George W. Bush. When he ran for president in 2000, he made it quite clear that trimming government was not his main goal. "The American government is not the enemy of the people," he declared. "At times it is wasteful and grasping. But we must correct it, not disdain it. Government must be carefully limited but strong and active and respected within those bounds. It must act for the common good."
Bush promoted a new domestic governing philosophy: compassionate conservatism. To be honest, that hasn't panned out. So the task this year, starting with the State of the Union speech, is to come up with a new governing philosophy that will give domestic policy a sense of idealism, ambition and shape.
For my money, the best organizing principle for Republicans centers on the word "reform." Republicans can modernize the (mostly Democratic) accomplishments of the 20th century. That would mean entitlement reform, tax reform, more welfare reform, education reform, immigration reform, tort reform and on and on. In all these areas, Republicans can progressively promote change, while Democrats remain the churlish defenders of the status quo.
Republicans could remind voters, as Rudy Giuliani reminded New Yorkers, that we don't have to live with so-called intractable problems. If crime and child poverty can be reduced, then so can the education gap between whites and minorities. The tax code can be simplified, and entitlements made sustainable.
It's looking increasingly as if Democrats will be the party of anger in 2004. Republicans may as well be the party of reform and hope.
HELLO???????? what planet are you calling from??? I'm not interesting in buying any!!! Now go away!!
Pubbie Pols got tired of that action after Eisenhower. Nixon rolled up his sleeves and got into the act of economic manipulation (central planning), failing of course.
Now, the Pubbies role has been changed from just saving up some money for the next splurge. Now, they get to actually fix some of the damage left by Democrat recklessness. Sheesh.
Bump for Truth.
About the final nail in the Reagan governmental coffin.
Those are very strong words. Conceding the fight to dismantle the welfare state was the moral equivalent of punting on 4th down from your own twenty yard line. But even the "reduced" goals that you stated will be a titanic fight in the 21st century. Conservatives will always be painted as holding back the glorious future of The Nurturing Society.
Brooks may be onto something here, but I'd like to know what he expected from "compassionate conservatism" that he claims didn't work out. Is it because Democrats are furious Bush pushed his own agenda rather than letting himself get screwed by Democrats like his father who tried to play ball with them? Mitchell and Foley took Bush 41 to the cleaners. Is Brooks disappointed nothing was learned?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.