Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Differences between Republicans and Democrats
This article is worth a read. Michael Medved lays out an interesting theory on why Democrats tend to nominate legislators (this years field features six senators) and Republicans tend to nominate executives (this years field has four governors and one ex-mayor).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Medved makes some interesting points, and I think he's right that people perceive legislative candidates as representative of big government and executives as friendly to small government, but there is a major flaw in that thinking.
Most of the federal bureaucracy comes from administrative agencies, not the legislative branch. At least we get a say who gets into Congress. But the IRS, DHS, HUD, DOD, DOE, etc. are run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.
And that agency that actually exert the most control over Americans is not the Republicans favorite big-government whipping boy, Social Security, it is DHS, particularly if you live near a border or fly often. I'm not saying that SSA isn't messed up but the size and dominion of the federal government always increases more when America goes to war than during peace time. Over the last three decades, America always goes to war more under Republican presidents. Whether that's good or bad, justified or unjustified is another question. The fact is that the federal government gets bigger and more powerful every time. It is undeniable that wars are entered and fought more by administrative types.
DHS, the NSA, and the Patriot Act are the most salient recent examples of bigger and stronger federal government. During this President's time in office we also have NCLB and huge deficits. These are not conservative developments.
Medved may be right that people think Republicans will create smaller government. For Reagan and Bush I, they may be right. But GWB, at least in this regard, is not a conservative.
My question is this: will the Republicans field a candidate who is conservative on government as well as on social issues? Who will it be? Romney? Will his loyalty to Bush extend to the same big-government style?
JKC,
Good comment. A couple of responses. One, you are right to point out that Bush has expanded government considerably. I would say that among most conservatives, this is their biggest critique of the President. Security and defense are the areas where most conservatives are willing to spend though.
I do think that Republicans are looking to nominate a candidate that will try to shrink govenment. Romney talks that way. McCain certainly does as well. Even Giuliani speaks often of shrinking the NYC beuracracy. I must admit, however, that conservatism is willing to stomach a larger government than it was before.
One more thought. You mention that during the last 30 years Republicans have been more likely to bring us to war. A couple of challenges here. Firsrt, there has only been a Democrat for ten years of this period. Clinton, 8 of these 10 years, used the military more than anyone. True, these were not major conflicts, but I will list them. Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Somolia, Iraq, Haiti (almost), strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan. True, the largest conflicts invlolve both Bushes. I would argue, however, that while Democrats have shied away from major conflict, they have not been shy to use military force.
Thanks for participatiing JKC. Your comments are always smart.
JKC,
Will you see any Republican candidate who says, "I want to shrink the security state?" Not likely. We in the GOP are in favor of a robust security state, especially now. We believe that the security state should be as large and as powerful as is necessary to meet current challenges to security.
When conservatives rail against "big government" what they are talking about are expansive regulation and welfare states. Security against foreign and domestic threats is not a controversial function of government. The welfare state and the regulation state are less well-received in conservative quarters. Our current president and our current congressional Republicans have not been sufficiently conservative in these matters in the eyes of much of the rank-and-file GOP.
There is certainly opportunity for a candidate who will promise to cut down on non-defense, non-security spending and meddling in private business.
Post a Comment