Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution

From chapter one of his book | March 2, 2007 | Michael D. Tanner

[rob777]

This is a little old, but it points to a trend that I am affrad will greatly accelerate if the GOP selects Mike Huckabee. There are few candidates who would reverse this trend. I see Thompson as one of them.

[JamesP81]

bttt

[michwm]

I agree.
Thompson is the only one I sense can keep the “team” somewhat on track.

[joebuck]

Lot of truth here. And I agree very few of the current candidates from either side would do anything to reverse this trend. To the contrary, they would substantially increase it.

[A.Hun]

I'm sorry, but cutting the size of the federal government is a pipe dream. There is no political consensus for doing it.

GWB did the best he could with his tax cuts....starving the government and make Congress deal with the deficits. Congress exceeded his budget requests every year, anyway.

Over 50% of government spending are entitlements that will never be touched. That only leaves defense and discretionary spending to cut.

This guy doesn't tell you that the size of the federal government to GDP has changed very little under the President. Most of the added expense has been in the military and for homeland defense after 9/11.

Neither Thompson or anyone else could do any better.

[donna]

Nixon was a big government liberal. So, when did the “trend” start?

A more likely scenario is that conservatives learned from the 1994 Republican Revolution that all Washington politicians are big spenders and we cannot stop them.

Now “conservatives” are only concerned about their own special issue because they were forced to faced the hopelessness of reducing government.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

place holder

[snowrip]

I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve had enough of Arkansas governors.

Thompson all the way.

[rob777]

"I'm sorry, but cutting the size of the federal government is a pipe dream. There is no political consensus for doing it."


There was no consensus for a lot of what the left wanted to do initially, they built a consensus incrementally. If the right can not work to do the same in the other direction, there is no reason for its existence.

This process was started by Goldwater then abandoned by Nixon. It was then picked up by Reagan and abandoned by Bush Sr. The class of '94 picked it up briefly, but the GOP dropped it after only a short time. By contrast, the left has been consistently pushing their big government Utopian vision for about a century whether it is popular or not. The right has not even attempted to effectively combat this onslaught.

[snowrip]

There is no political consensus for doing it.

Except among the American people.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the US economy can forever pay for ascendant spending. That's what has gotten us to the place we're in today.

[goldstategop]

It will probably accelerate. Conservatives are by and large resigned to the reality government will never get smaller. It hasn't shrunk in my lifetime. The political forces that favor big government are just too powerful to defeat. So if we can't shrink government, the least we can do is make sure it doesn't do any real harm. There is not much of a political constituency in America for having government do less than it does today. A lot of us would like to see one emerge but the enthusiasm is decidedly lacking in American political life today for the sorts of causes small government conservatives champion.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[rob777]

"Nixon was a big government liberal. So, when did the “trend” start?"


There have been several trends as the GOP has been wavering back and forth between support for big government and sticking to the small government principles championed by Goldwater. The latest trend started in about 1996-1997 and culminated in the nomination of Bush in 2000 when the GOP Platform had such planks as the elimination of the Federal Department of Education removed.

[Dr.Deth]

Bump for later

[kalee]

bttt

[A.Hun]

I’m just pointing out the reality. It might change in the years to come, but as long as 50% of voters pay no income taxes at all, the government gravy train will continue.

As long as you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on Paul’s support.

[rob777]

"GWB did the best he could with his tax cuts....starving the government and make Congress deal with the deficits. Congress exceeded his budget requests every year, anyway."


Actually Bush aided the growth of government by "Proposing" new big government programs like his Prescription Drug program. He ran in the 2000 primaries against the limited government wing of the party and gutted the Platform of planks that called for the elimination of federal departments.

[DaveyB]

...There is no political consensus for doing it...

As long as the majority of voters are indoctrinated in big government schools there is little hope in reversing this. We didn't become socialists overnight, we were taught it.

Regan appointed Bill Bennett to close down the department of education. Instead of doing what needed to be done this "big government conservative" expanded it because closing it down would have been too unpopular (Particularly unpopular with big government conservatives). It is difficult to get the nation off the government dole when they are getting free day-care at the government schools while assuring the next generation of voters will be well indoctrinated in the virtues of the big government.

[A.Hun]

He couldn’t be elected without the prescription drug plan. Once he was elected, he refused to go back on his promise. Gore’s plan would have really sucked. Eliminating federal departments was totally unrealistic.

Once again, political reality.

[goldstategop]

People say they favor small government. If you ask them where to cut though, every one has a favorite program or service they benefit from that they defend. People like the ideal of small government a lot but they balk at what's required to get one. The minimalist libertarian vision of government for instance, finds few takers in this country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[rob777]

"It might change in the years to come, but as long as 50% of voters pay no income taxes at all, the government gravy train will continue."


I do not see it changing in the absence of a political movement dedicated to pushing that change. Leadership is about creating a consensus for the direction that you believe is the right one. The left has been very skillful in incrementally, but consistently moving the political debate in the direction of bigger government for about a century now. The right has done very little of this and now is giving up on what little efforts it was engaged in. If this was not so pathetic, I would laugh.