George F. Will: Freedom vs. Equality (RIP small-government conservatism)

Town Hall ^ | February 1, 2004 | George F. Will [Washington Post Writers Group]

[quidnunc]

This may be the most nation-shaping election since 1932, not only — or even primarily — because of the parties' foreign policy differences. Those differences, about sovereignty, multilateralism, preemptive war and nation-building, concern vital fundamentals. But 2004 may secure the ascendancy of one of two radically different ideas of the proper role of government and the individual's proper relationship to it.

This will be the first election since candidate George W. Bush made explicit in 2000 what had become implicit in conservatives' behavior. As recently as the 1994 congressional elections, Republicans had triumphed by preaching small-government conservatism, vowing to abolish four Cabinet-level departments, including Education.

By 2000 conservatives knew that even Americans rhetorically opposed to "big government" are, when voting, defenders of the welfare state. Social Security and Medicare are the two most popular and biggest components of government (together, a third of federal outlays and rising as the population ages).

Candidate Bush promised to strengthen the New Deal's emblematic achievement (Social Security) and to add a prescription drug entitlement to the Great Society's (Medicare). Since 2001 he has increased federal spending 48 percent on K-12 education.

Today "strong government conservatism" — "strong" is not synonymous with "big" — is the only conservatism palatable to a public that expects government to assuage three of life's largest fears: illness, old age and educational deficits that prevent social mobility. Some conservatives believe government strength is inherently inimical to conservative aspirations. This belief mistakenly assumes that all government action is merely coercive, hence a subtraction from freedom. But government can act strongly to make itself less controlling and intrusive, enacting laws that offer opportunities and incentives for individuals to become more self-sufficient.

-snip-

[GeronL]

More than nine years of a Republican-controlled Congress and we end up with socialism-lite... what a failure

[staytrue]

We only had 7 years of congressional control. You have to remember Jim Jeffords.

Of those 7 years, only 1 year did the republicans have control of both congress and the presidency.

Besides, at least we got mega tax cuts.

[Finalapproach29er]

I'm not a whore that cares about money,or can be bought with tax cuts.

Big Government= Less individual freedom

GWB is taking away freedom. Maybe he'll sign Hillary's mandatory seat belt law next. As if its any of their damn business.

[Finalapproach29er]

I feel the same. High hopes dashed.

[MissAmericanPie]

He sure is trying to put a brass polish on a tin plate. Ten billion for aids in Africa, 34 billion in SS for illegals, a trillion for mars, billions for medicare drugs, too tired to list the rest but ya'll know what they are.

Disgusting and enraging.

[I_dmc]

Americans rhetorically opposed to "big government" are, when voting, defenders of the welfare state

I wouldn't blame Congress.  Their goal is reelection.  If passing pork and the nanny state didn't get them reelected, they wouldn't pass these things.

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

bump...

[IronJack]

government can act strongly to make itself less controlling and intrusive, enacting laws that offer opportunities and incentives for individuals to become more self-sufficient.

That has to be the most well-crafted bullsh!t I've ever read. How does one "offer incentives" to become more self-sufficient? Doesn't the very act of offering an incentive create a dependency?

George Will's neocon colors are showing. But this kind of squishy "conservatism" is the New Wave. We can no longer count on support for true conservatism from the traditional quarters.

[Texasforever]

We can no longer count on support for true conservatism from the traditional quarters.

Will is only correctly interpreting the state of the American electorate today. There is NO chance for a red-meat conservative to get elected. In fact there has NEVER been a red-meat conservative elected in modern times but there have been several ultra-liberals elected. In both good times AND bad times the American people turn to government.

[MEG33]

Interesting column.I like his recognition that those who wish to abolish Social Security and Medicare are stumbling in the dark..Reform,yes,abolish ,no.I am awre that Bush's expenditure in education calls for accountability.The dems, and NEA hate it.

[Huck]

By 2000 conservatives knew that even Americans rhetorically opposed to "big government" are, when voting, defenders of the welfare state. Social Security and Medicare are the two most popular and biggest components of government (together, a third of federal outlays and rising as the population ages). Candidate Bush promised to strengthen the New Deal's emblematic achievement (Social Security) and to add a prescription drug entitlement to the Great Society's (Medicare). Since 2001 he has increased federal spending 48 percent on K-12 education.

Limited government is dead.

[quidnunc]

The bane of conservatism is single-issue idealogues.

They simply will not accept the fact that successful politics is a series of compromises.

[Texasforever]

The bane of conservatism is single-issue idealogues.

Well that's the nice way of putting it.

[Destro]

Will is trying to spray perfume on a pile of sh*t. The word has gone down to the lackeys that they need to come up with explanations to keep the true conservative base from bolting or staying home or even voting to split the govt with Repubs in the congress and Kerry in the WH.

They are afraid and this tortured piece of crap word smithing by Will proves it.

[Destro]

The bane of conservatism is single-issue idealogues.

You mistake single issue with an all encompasing world view.

Small govt = freedom.

That is not an issue - it is a life style.

[Map Kernow]

Besides, at least we got mega tax cuts.

And now we have mega-spending. That makes the "mega tax cuts" increasingly an illusion. You can't have tax cuts and huge spending increases at the same time, no matter how "supply side" the tax cuts are. Sooner or later, our means will force a choice, and the temptation will just be overwhelming to sacrifice the tax cuts to the increased spending.

Just like you can't have open borders and a welfare state---the temptation is ultimately overwhelming for politicians to extend welfare benefits to immigrants---whether legal or illegal---, and for immigrants to avail themselves of the welfare benefits instead of jobs.

[Destro]

Aren't the tax cuts temporary anyway?

[Map Kernow]

Aren't the tax cuts temporary anyway?

Both de jure and de facto. My point is, even if GW gets Congress to go along with his election year ploy of "making the tax cuts permanent," there's effectively no "permanence" to tax cuts that are coupled with open ended new entitlements and huge spending increases not connected to the necessity caused by the War on Terror.

[MissAmericanPie]

When a guy has a gun at your temple, that does tend to become your single issue and focus. Flooding a 50/50 ballot box with 12 million new demonrats tends to offset the balance of power. The three million Reagan amnestied became an instant and activist voting bloc for Demonrats and jointly they have given us the massive invasion we have now.

In fact as Bush, a Harvard grad, surely knows, this amensty will forever cement the USofA as a socialist/communist nation. This would certainly work in the best interests of Bush and friends globalist plans for the USofA, first they have to get rid of the conservative votes of the native population and immigrants with good sense.