Posted on 12/04/2011 1:32:07 PM PST by rabscuttle385
The leading Republican candidates promise more of the same.
BY MICHAEL D. TANNER
In the wake of the disastrous Bush presidency and the Republican defeats of 2006 and 2008, it was widely assumed that the GOP had repudiated the idea that big government could be harnessed for conservative ends. And, of course, in 2010, the Tea Party led a return to conservatism's traditional small-government roots, resulting in the biggest Republican landslide in 70 years. One would think that settled the matter.
Yet, just five weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, both of the front-runners for the Republican nomination are strong advocates for a bigger, more activist government. Obviously, everything is relative. Neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich represents the sort of income-redistributing welfare state embodied by the Obama administration. But neither are they a threat to truly cut back the size, cost, and intrusiveness of the federal government.
On most issues, in fact, Romney and Gingrich have nearly identical positions — and they are not positions that should warm the hearts of those advocating limited government. As is well known, both supported an individual mandate for health insurance, although Gingrich has now changed his mind and Romney says he only supports state-level mandates. Both also supported George W. Bush's Medicare prescription-drug benefit, and neither would back Paul Ryan's Medicare-reform plan, which Gingrich famously called "right-wing social engineering."
Both Gingrich and Romney have long supported more federal involvement and spending in education. Both backed No Child Left Behind. In fact, both endorsed the same strange idea of having the federal government buy a laptop computer for every child in America.
While both have eagerly embraced the Republican orthodoxy of cutting taxes, neither has indicated that he will do much to reduce government spending. Other than the usual conservative hit list — Planned Parenthood, NPR, legal services — it's hard to find anything that they are in favor of cutting. In fact, both are even opposed to cuts in farm price supports or ethanol subsidies. Gingrich was last seen suggesting that anyone who wanted to cut ethanol subsidies must hate farmers, while Romney believes food subsidies are a matter of national security, as if al-Qaeda is going to corner the wheat market.
And of course both favor increased defense spending and neoconservative interventionism overseas, while embracing government activism on social issues at home.
Barry Goldwater once described his political philosophy by saying, "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I intend to reduce its size."
In contrast, both Romney and Gingrich see their role as one of streamlining government and making it more efficient. Romney is the quintessential better manager, a "turn-around specialist," someone who can make government run more like a business. And Gingrich's new ideas are nearly all about making government work better. For example, he doesn't oppose a national ID system (E-Verify); he wants it "run by MasterCard or Visa." He doesn't want to get government out of health care; he wants to use "Lean Six Sigma" business strategy to make it less wasteful.
Nowhere in their rhetoric is there a recognition that big government is bad because it makes us less free.
Perhaps the Gingrich-Romney ascendancy is a sign of the weakness of the rest of the field. Herman Cain now appears to know a lot more about sex than he does about foreign policy. Rick Perry looks worse with each successive debate. Jon Huntsman has been written off as a RINO, despite being more economically conservative than either Gingrich or Romney, because of his heresies on global warming and (horrors!) his support for civil unions for gay couples. Ron Paul's foreign policy is not designed to appeal to Republican primary voters. Michele Bachmann is headed for Gary Johnson territory in the polls.
Or perhaps, after enduring the economic catastrophe of the Obama administration, voters are simply yearning for some competent management.
But for those with a yearning for a smaller, more limited, more constitutional government, this election becomes more dismal with each passing day.
Apparently ABBO is good enough.
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here.
Anyone but Romney. Not going to reward the abortionist, gay rights pushing, gun-grabbing, big government, mandate-loving, socialist healthcare pushing, Kennedy ally, aisle crossing, leftist consensus building, anti-Reagan RINO, Myth Romney with the presidency.
If Newt is the Romney killer, I’m in!! GO NEWT!!
Establishment R’s want Romney. Screw the establishment and screw you George Will. Newt will come in a shake things up and spit in the faces of the media.
I’m from the environmental solutions department and I’m here to help.
Sorry kids, Newt is as much of a democrat as Mittens and neither are going to beat Obama.
All this talk about what a president can do or is going to do
is really beginning to tick me off.
We have a president, not a king.
His impact on legislation, the economy, immigration, energy, etc. is quite limited
The president can not “reduce the size of government”.
He has no such authority.
It is time we begin to focus our attention on the House and the Senate,
where the real problem lies.
I totally agree. Pro-amnesty McCain had Sarah Palin's help and he couldn't. So what are the chances that a pro-amnesty retread RINO Newt Gingrich will?
Romney can't get more than 25% support. Should he somehow get the nomination conservatives won't vote for him either.
Yesterday was a good day for Obama and the DNC.
There is one candidate that speaks openly of reducing the size of Government.
Rick Perry
Newt 2012 is McCain 2008 redux! THE last man standing choice. Romney is not an option.
All issues? Not exactly true. Gingrich is at least pro-life.
Romney led the charge for “Roe v Wade is settled law” and “abortion should be safe and legal”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU
Gingrich was heavily involved in the Reagan revolution. Romney aligned himself with Kennedy and distanced himself from Reagan.
“I was an independent during Reagan-Bush! I’m not returning to Reagan-Bush!” —Mitt Romney.
They’ve both flip-flopped on issues, but Newt’s actual accomplishments in balancing the budget, the contract with America, and ushering in a Republican majority and the long-lasting Reagan economy are far superior and more desirable over Mitt’s evil accomplishments of taxpayer funded abortion, gay marriage, government mandated healthcare, liberal judges and appointees and the complete destruction of conservatism and the Republican brand in Massachusetts.
Just one problem...
Can’t you get John to run out and jiggle the wires or something?
Maybe bribe him with a beer?
There’s a meme going around that promotes the idea that Gov. Perry may be able to make a comeback, and I’m starting to warm to that idea. If the GOP voters start realizing that Romney and Gingrich are just versions of the GWB big government-type Republican (which they seem to be), maybe Perry can squeeze back in by claiming that he’s the only real small government conservative that can beat Obama.
How about his idea for a part-time Congress, eliminating the Dept. of ill-Education, the EPA and the Dept. of no-Energy? Sounds good to me.
I’m NOT going to have my candidate picked by the media! I’m going to write Cain in, if I have to.
Looks like Perry and the horse ditched the dead weight.
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.