Posted by
JDComments on Monday, November 20, 2006 11:27:27 AM
Michael Barone's article, which is a plea for Conservatives to come up with new ideas, is , as everything he writes, thoughtful and correct in its essentials. However, on this site it has elicited a number of criticisms for saying that big government is here to stay:
To be sure, this is big-government conservatism. But who thinks we're going to get rid of big government? Bush's approach has been to enhance choice and accountability, to rely more on markets and less on government commands.
As a Conservative, I , too, take offense at the thought that we have to accept Big Government as a fait accompli, an idea that goes against everything that we stand for and believe, and the clearest difference between us and Liberals. However, I do not think Barone's statement is necessarily a refutation of Conservatism, but rather a modification in the tactics for limiting government.
To consider my proposal, first realize that the abhorrence of Big government felt by Conservatives is due to the potential for abuse and even tyranny which arises when power is concentrated in a limited number of hands. When the US was being created, the response to this concern was the system of checks and balances which would always serve to restrain the exercise of governmental power.
I would also include in my criticism of Big government that I have yet to find anything it does efficiently and well, so on a strictly economic basis I shudder when I hear Liberals recommend it solve another one of our problems.
Now as the country has grown infinitely more complex through the centuries, the responsibilities of government have grown. Would it be better if these had been restricted? I would say absolutely YES, but Conservatives, as opposed to Liberals, deal with the practical and real, and therefore we have to acknowledge conditions on the ground, an analogous situation to warfare, where tactics are always changing to adjust to reality. However, our strategy must remain the same, and this is to limit government, and restrict it from becoming oppressive. To accomplish this, market mechanisms and private initiatives have been incorporated into many of the Bush policies, as a way to "check" the power of government, and limit it to a supervisory role. Again, my gut instinct is always to avoid any government expansion, but at the same time if we can restrict it to a refereeing role, well that is a situation I can live with, and not anything resembling the omnipotent Government of Liberal myth and fairy tales. Liberals love to point to the current administration and denigrate its Conservative credentials. and yet they passionately hate it, because they recognize that the limited government responsibilities that have been created by its policies is antithetical to their dogma. Their hatred speaks volumes about the continuing Conservative success at limiting government for the sake of freedom even as we address the problems confronting our Nation.