GOP: party of "reform" rather than "small government"

[Cain]

David Brooks' op-ed in today's _NYT_ states the obvious -- which is extraordinarily difficult for some Republicans -- and proposes the GOP become the party of "reform" in contrast to the Democrats, the party of "anger" (at least in the 2004 election cycle).

The Republican Party has a problem this election year. It's the governing party, but it lacks a governing philosophy.

The G.O.P. used to have a governing philosophy: reducing the size of the state. This was a useful goal because it was the one thing all Republican factions could agree upon. The business community wanted to reduce the public sector because it stifled growth. Social conservatives wanted to shrink the nanny state because it produced dependency. Libertarians and populists wanted to reduce government because it gave too much power to bureaucratic elites.

But reducing the size of government can no longer be Republicans' animating principle. In the first place, many of the worst excesses of government have been addressed. It's harder to argue that government programs reward bad behavior after welfare reform. It's harder to argue that government stifles economic growth after a generation of tax-rate reduction and the awesome boom of the 1990's.

But the main reason reducing the size of government can't be the party's animating principle is that Republicans have no credibility on this subject. During the Reagan years, Republicans tried to cut the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling Congress. In 1995, Republicans tried to reduce the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling the White House. Now Republicans control everything, and over the past three years the size of government has still increased, not even counting the war on terror.

Republicans have learned through hard experiences that most Americans do not actually want their government sharply cut. Voters are skeptical of government, but they elect candidates who promise solutions for their problems, not ones who tear down departments. They do not respond to politicians whose primary message is "No, no, no."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/opinion/03BROO.html

[davefoc]

Many people that vote Republican and consider themselves Republicans continue to favor small government for the reasons listed in the excerpt you included in your post.

Some people that get elected as Republicans probably agree with this kind of thinking also.

But it seems to me that the article is correct in that Republican party leadership does not have this as a goal. The goal of the Republican leadership is to obtain money and to get Republicans elected.

So Republicans will vote for steel tariffs, massive farm subsidies, hugely expensive prescription medicine bills, airline bailout bills, etc. if they think they will get more votes and money by doing so than if they don't vote for these things. There seems to be no need for any kind of a consistent ideology in deciding what to vote for. In fact, folks that actually vote for things they believe in are derisively called ideologs like somehow not being willing to vote for things you don't believe in is a bad thing and being willing to vote for politically advantageous things regardless of your ideology seems to be viewed as a good thing.

Of course, pretty much the same thing could be said about the motivation and ethics of Democratic Party leadership. Here in California the Democratic Party does a pretty good inpersonation of a criminal enterprise, as it doles out favors to the various Democratic party sponsors like the trial lawyers.

[corplinx]

I think Bush/Rove just want to get enough senators elected to block filibusters. Limited government sounds great and all until Daschle accuses you of wanting to kill old people and stages a dramatic filibuster "to protect the people".

Without the filibuster, you have a vote and a year later noone remembers that you finally added means testing to medicare and ss and fixed the programs.

[Judith]

Originally posted by davefoc
Many people that vote Republican and consider themselves Republicans continue to favor small government for the reasons listed in the excerpt you included in your post.
I agree and I think most people are not informed enough to realize the Replublicans don't do what
they preach when it comes to smaller government. Its a mantra that can be repeated to the loyal masses to make them feel better about themselves - and keeps the votes coming in.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Judith

I agree and I think most people are not informed enough to realize the Replublicans don't do what
they preach when it comes to smaller government. Its a mantra that can be repeated to the loyal masses to make them feel better about themselves - and keeps the votes coming in.

This is my main complaint about the current administration. Bush is not conservative enough when it comes to limiting social and special interest spending. The 87 billion spent on the Iraq war made big headlines, but the 162 billion in pork projects added to bills to buy votes in 2003 didn't make any news at all. Is it any wonder we have a 500 billion dollar defecit?

[Otther]

*raises hand*

Does anyone have a site that could give me some information about bush's spending? I'm not trying to refute anything, I just want to get a better view of the picture. Thanks.

[corplinx]

If you notice, Bush hasn't vetoed a bill yet. Congress spends and spends and instead of opposing it Bush meerly tries to steer the momentum.

Personally, I don't think Bush should veto any bills (overuse of the veto encourages apathy in congressional races), however he is going to wind up like Reagan having his legacy tainted by runaway congressional appropriations.