A Thinking Reed

Party of limited government? Ha!

Written by

Lee M.

in

Speaking of the Schiavo case, in today’s Inquirer analyst Dick Polman writes that it’s emblematic of the GOP’s shift from the party of limited government to the party of using the federal government to enforce a particular morality:

Barry Goldwater said in 1964, “I fear Washington and centralized government more than I do Moscow.” Ronald Reagan said in 1975, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less governmental interference, or less centralized authority.” And Newt Gingrich vowed in 1994 that a Republican Congress would hasten “the end of government that is too big, too intrusive.”

But today, as evidenced by the Republican Congress’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, it’s clear that the traditional conservative credo no longer guides the GOP. The core mission has radically changed during the Bush era. “Small government” and “state’s rights” are out; wielding federal power to advance moral issues at the local level is in.

Now, there’s an entire of genre of analysis, going back, say, ten years or so, in which liberals, who would never be caught dead voting Republican, attempt to rescue the lovable old GOP from horrible Christian Rightists and steer it back to the noble legacy of Goldwater and Reagan. Never mind that Goldwater and Reagan were denounced as fascists and extremists in their day!

But more to the point, has the GOP ever been the party of limited government? From its very inception it was dedicated to “wielding federal power to advance moral issues at the local level” (we call that Civil War and Reconstruction!). The rhetoric of Reagan was largely just that (as even most conservatives now concede). The priorities of the GOP when in power have usually been tax cuts, huge increases in military spending, pork and corporate welfare, and modest cuts in programs for the poor. Combine this with a lot of mostly empty rhetoric on family values and you’ve got a recipe for electoral success! But little principled devotion to limited government or genuine federalism and localism.

Comments

3 responses to “Party of limited government? Ha!”

  1. Chris T.

    I think you’re right about the way the party has operated, but a lot of folks who are not party elites do vote GOP because they honestly believe it stands for small government and states’ rights. I know a lot of Republicans who are Republicans for exactly this reason—about half think Bush is a small-gov’t President, against all possible evidence, and the other half are hoping the GOP leadership will snap out of this, again against all the evidence.

    I’m inclined to think the states’ rights discussion at least is a function of who’s in power. When the GOP was in the minority in Congress, they were all about states’ rights—now they trample on them. Dems were the party of big gov’t back then, but now they have states’ rights advocate Howard Dean at the helm.

    Reply
  2. Lee

    Chris, I agree with you on both points. I don’t mean to deny that there are sincere limited-government conservatives. I proably used to fit that description myself – I even voted for Bush (in 2000 I hasten to add – fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me).

    Reply
  3. Joshie

    seems as if the reps have become little more than a nationalist party with a big government approach. “National Socialists” if you will. What did the Germans shorten the name of their National Socialist party to? Can’t seem to remember.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Chris T. Cancel reply

More posts