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

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.

Those people to whom the top issues are welfare, Social Security, Medicare and federal aid to education aren't going to vote for Bush or Republicans no matter what. It's sort of the converse of the thing about how Clinton wouldn't be impeached if he was videotaped with a teen. Bush wouldn't be supported by a liberal if he raised the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour and put Che Guevara on the one dollar bill.

So....since these people aren't going to support Bush no matter what...and since these things drive away his conservative base, isn't the net effect negative?

For liberals, the big issues are things like welfare and education (getting more of it free and subsidizing the enormous and enormously powerful education establishment.)

For Bush people, for the red states, for conservatives, the top issues are defense, terrorism, crime, taxes, individual freedom, regulation, abortion, the 2nd amendment, big government, affirmative action, immigration, the constitution, Judeo-Christian values, and (as a talk show host puts it) borders, language and culture.

Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. While Americans love the idea of small government, they also expect government to take care of their health and retirement. The issue isn't whether the welfare state will be eliminated but rather what KIND of welfare state we should live with. Republicans think dispersing its functions and holding costs in line along with creating a menu of private choices will make people think of government more as a tool than as a crutch. The Left thinks everything should be centralized in Washington, cost is irrelevant, and people should look government to take care of all their needs. Sure a lot of people would like the welfare state to disappear but its daydreaming. So by the subraction of political math we're left with two different models of how people's two most pressing concerns should be taken care of. And the betting of Republicans is rather than engage in a bidding war with the (which we can never win) Democrats over benefits, we should focus instead on seeing to it the welfare state delivers the most bang for the buck at the least expense to the taxpayers. When you come down right to it, this is the thinking of today's conservatives about social problems and how the government ought to respond to them.

"As an exercise for the student: if, say, Kerry were president with a strong Republican House and Senate what would actually happen?"

ACLU-type liberal activist Judges would get into the Supreme Court, like happened under Clinton.

We'd let our guard down again vis a vis terrorism and anti-American threats, as we did under Clinton.

And the administration would continue the degradation of our culture, as we also saw under Clinton. Kerry would effectively block any attempt to stop the legal push to invent same-sex marriage.

And any efforts that George Will speaks of to reform our Liberal Welfare state into a choice-based system of provision of health,education and retirement, will be a dead letter. And that would be a shame. It's about time we fixed these old one-size-fits-all programs and updated them for the 21st century. Democrats in power would stymie that for another generation.

Sure, it's wonderful the Republican Congress of 1995-2000 worked to balance the budget, but the political evolution over that era had far more negative events than the progress we see in 2003 (tax cuts, partial birth abortion ban, other conservative-changes-in-direction).

"Keep in mind that the President is not a king."

Keep in mind that a Liberal President is treated as one by the press.

Clearly you and some others misunderstand George Will.

George Will makes the correct point that the political calculation of the majority of Americans is to make sure:
1. people dont die for lack of health care.
2. people dont become unemployable for lack of education.
3. people dont die in old age for lack of a pension.

Some Democrats really believe that Republicans are out to kill people and are "against" health care and "against" education. This is a slur, but some conservatives do shoot themselves in the foot by playing to the stereotype and arguing that the Government should do nothing here. IMHO that is a mistake. Things exist and 'work' in the marketplace because there is a *demand* for it. In the political marketplace, there is an electoral demand for these things to be taken care of. Conservatives can argue against the principle of robin hood govt, but will lose badly in elections if they do.

How to respond in a principled and non-defeatist way? Apply conservative principles in a way that ADDRESSES these issues, redirecting HOW we fund and support these programs. The Socialist solution of government running the whole shop is one extreme, the other extreme is for Government to provide a subsidy that is used in the open market for a 'good' (education, health care, etc).

Will: "Both parties understand the political calculus: People dependent on government tend to vote for liberals promising to enlarge government. Hence the intensity of Democratic resistance to four facets of Bush's strong-government conservatism: school standards and choice; medical savings accounts; choice in investing a portion of Social Security taxes; and cuts in individual income taxes."

You say:

"Health care will take another 10-20% and the additional taxes will do what to the nation's wealth? "

Yes, health care is 15% of GDP or so, and as Sen Phil Gramm has said, its not if we are going to pay for this, we do - it is how we pay for health care. I would add - who pays, and who the middleman is, and how the system is structured.

"delegating the federal government as the keeper of the nanny state at more than 50% of output ..." That is the Liberal Welfare State solution.

How about a conservative solution?
1. Educational vouchers for all students. parents decide on how they get educated, and can choose from public or private schools.
2. Health care provision for the needy only, from Govt subsidy, via insurance that people can choose from. The Govt run version could "wither on the vine" in Newt's words, if it is not as efficient/effective.
3. Social Security system broken into 2 parts - one, a basic system for the indigent elderly 'safety net'; two, a funded pension plan that workers can choose from, or they can choose to send the money into other retirement savings accounts they own.

So government assists in the provision of these services that the electorate says society needs, but in a minimum-intrusion, maximum-freedom/choice manner. The choice leads to higher quality and efficiency, enabling less Government intrusion and cost.

Liberals are understandbly apoplectic at this intelligent conservative approach: It drives a stake through the Liberal Welfare State's one-size-fits-all approach and it takes away a MAJOR issue that the Democrats used to keep the 'dependency class' on the 'reservation'.

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.