As part of my endless quest to understand the meaning of words that are commonly used but ill defined, I found myself trying to understand precisely how best to politically characterize opposition to big government. I am going to attempt to break this down because the more I think about it, the more confused I become.
Naturally, most of us would agree that unless he is lying (and I’m coming to that), a person who expresses opposition to big government is conservative and/or libertarian and/or both. But which term is inclusive of which? Obviously, not all who oppose big government can be called libertarians, because many conservatives do not consider themselves libertarians. But neither nor can they fairly be called conservative, because many libertarians do not consider themselves conservatives. Is there, then, a tent? What should it be called? The anti-big government tent? The small government tent? The government-that-governs-best-governs-least tent? The Tea Party tent?
Another nagging question is this: if there is a small government tent, who belongs in it? As I have said many times, I advocate an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives, and I will continue to advocate that, no matter how annoyed I might get from time to time with socially conservative ideology or activists.
But the question I have today about inclusion is a different one. Because, while there is no reason a small government tent (or, a coalition against big government) should not include both social conservatives and libertarians, what about the people who favor big government? Without even getting to the question of what they should be called, is it reasonable for big government people to demand inclusion in a small government tent?
Common sense and simple logic would suggest not.
So what becomes of the so-called “big government conservatives” who think they have a right to be in the small government tent where they clearly don’t belong?
Any ideas?
Some people might say that there is no such thing as big government conservatism, that the phrase is an oxymoron. I agree that it is, but I am not the one who dreamed up big government conservatism (aka “National Greatness Conservatism”). I have opposed it from the start. But the big government “conservatives” are not going away. Not only have they never been kicked out of the the conservative tent (which I think they should have been), but right now they are at the gates to the small government tent. Based on their past record, they will enter the small government tent under false pretenses, hoping to use small government rhetoric as a stepping stone to power, whereupon they will simply do as they have done before, and we will once again have “big government conservatism.”
What worries me is that the wordsmiths among them will call simply figure out a way to rebadge big government conservatism as small government conservatism. (Perhaps by saying “The era of big government conservatism is over!” and congratulating themselves with a chorus of loud hurrahs.) Whether they are successful will depend on how serious the small government tent turns out to be about small government. It is my opinion that small government social conservatives need to be very careful about allying themselves with big government social conservatives, lest the former help bring the latter into the small government tent. It is one thing for them to work together on social conservative issues in a social conservative tent, but there is one thing I cannot stress enough:
Big government conservatives simply do not belong in the small government tent.
If these crooked bastards had any pride, they wouldn’t even try to enter. But pride means nothing to pure Machiavellians, and they have no scruples about using people to gain access and credibility. Likewise, they have no problem in saying they are against big government and not meaning it. It worked quite well for years didn’t it? So why wouldn’t it work again?
Libertarians, of course, can be depended upon to do what they always do, which is to complain. Actually the Tea Party variety of libertarians will probably do more than complain; they might even yell and scream, and threaten to leave the tent. That would be stupid. I would rather see the libertarians stay, and remain allies with the true small government conservatives to kick out the fakes.
Big is not small.
But shouldn’t that be obvious?
Will small become the new big?
by
Tags:
Comments
10 responses to “Will small become the new big?”
The big gov’t conservatives got into the same tent because of the War on (Some) Terror.
Bush and his “compassionate conservatism” was the camel’s nose in the tent.
You had to vote for him because the alternative was just too horrible to contemplate.
Any opinion on whether Ronald Reagan was a genuine small government conservative? He certainly talked the talk, but in the end, did he walk the walk? Could he have?
I don’t know.
I do know he didn’t abolish the Dept. of Education.
Keep in mind Reagan had an entirely democrat congress to work with for most of his two terms. He didn’t accomplish many acts (such as Dep’t of Education) because political opposition was too strong.
There may have been a tendency for many to overlook some of those failures both because of the political circumstances but also because of the tax cuts. Since taxes was one of the first things he did, that gave him a huge tide of popularity that never really eroded. FDR enjoyed a similar tide when he repealed Prohibition as one of his first acts; otherwise he may not have survived politically for all the damage he did to the country.
One thing Reagan did that may end up having saved the country, however, was repealing the Fairness Doctrine. I don’t know if it was seen as a big deal at the time (I was a kid & didn’t follow), but it has been a huge thorn in the sides of the statists who would otherwise have complete control of media.
So what becomes of the so-called “big government conservatives” who think they have a right to be in the small government tent where they clearly don’t belong?
The dominant ideology of the GOP is better described as “big government libertarianism”. That most accurately describes the sections of the party with the most power – the business wing and the neocons. Their commitment to left-wing social causes, open borders, and trade with China (laughably described as “free trade”) means that many of these people self-describe as libertarian. But they’re big government ones.
Big government conservatives simply do not belong in the small government tent.
I agree with you there, as long as you extend the principle to big government libertarians as well.
Anyone who favors big government is by definition not a libertarian.
I agree that such people do not belong in the small government tent. But since you used the term “big government libertarian,” you must know of some. Can you provide an example of a libertarian who is in favor of big government?
I’ve never met a libertarian who favored big government. Unless you mean some of the small ‘l’ types like me who do think we should keep the military.
If you mean to classify anyone who thinks the war on drugs has long since been lost as a libertarian, I think you need to think again. That particular stance is held by libertarians, many liberals and even a number of conservatives (I don’t think anyone ever accused William F. Buckley of being a libertarian.)
Some people claim Reagan caused AQ. Some people say ‘ridiculous’. I say ‘who cares?’
Worst case scenario, Reagan cause AQ, but he did so as a side effect of getting rid of Global Thermonuclear War (‘the game you can only play once’).
Again, like W, there was an element of ‘Hey, Republican President, if you want to save the world, you have to give us graft first’ from the Democratic Congress.
That said, yes, I wish Reagan had been more Conservative.
The real problem small-government conservatives have is compromising with other forces (Big G guys and Libertarians who double team Real Conservatives). Conservatism with a Happy Face (say Palin or Reagan) is a winner. Libertarianism–loser. Big Gov’t Conservatism–proven loser over and over. Anyone who voted for John McCain happily ought to forced to read and memorize that section in the Bible where God warns the Israelites of all the nasty taxes that a king was going to foist on them. Being a God of freedom, He allowed them to make the stupid choice, but He warned them.
‘ought to be forced’ is hyperbole.
Anyone who favors big government is by definition not a libertarian.
A great many people who favor big government call themselves libertarians. Besides, I thought libertarians defined themselves as being in favor of individual liberty? Sometimes individual liberty and big(er) government go hand in hand.
Can you provide an example of a libertarian who is in favor of big government?
Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent essay with the title “Big Government Libertarians”. You should check it out. As for specific examples from me, the regular contributors at “The Volokh Conspiracy” are good candidates.
Prop 187 was a California ballot initiative aimed at cutting off the spending of state money on illegal immigrants. If it had gone into effect in 1994 it would have done much to save California from its current de-facto bankruptcy.
Prop 187 was fought tooth-and-nail by the official libertarian movement. That was a big government socialist stance adapted by a lot of so-called libertarians e.g Jack Kemp.