Big Government, Small Government
Andrew, taking a page from Bruce Bartlett, asks:
From a conservative perspective, on spending, debt, big government, regulation, which Democrat could be worse?
As someone who opposed President Bush’s reelection in 2004, I think my bona fides as a non-supporter are sound. But it’s worth noting that, from a small government perspective, Bush has the upper hand on big government and regulation, and possibly on spending. Note that government’s share of GDP under Bush has crept up … to pre-Clinton levels. All of the Democratic candidates promise to expand entitlement programs well beyond Clinton-era levels. President Bush’s prescription drug benefit has been attacked by Democrats for not being generous enough, not for existing.
It could be the case that a Democratic president would be “better” along these dimensions because Congress would force a measure of restraint, but of course it seems very likely that Democrats will expand their majorities in the House and the Senate regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. So that can’t be it.
President Bush has failed not because he has grown government but because he proved to be a polarizing incompetent.
The “big government” vs. “small government” debate obscures deeper conflicts over the role of competition, transparency, individual responsibility, and whether government should be the main vehicle of social cooperation. For example, looking solely at government spending as a share of GDP masks the massive impact of tax subsidies. I’d be perfectly content if government spending were, say, 23 percent of GDP rather than 20 percent if that meant Americans were freer and more prosperous. The same is true if government spending were 15 percent. Pill-sweeteners, e.g., efforts that that increase salaries while eliminating tenure and other rigid work rules for teachers, can do a lot of good.
As someone who opposed President Bush’s reelection in 2004,
Huh. I thought you sat 2004 out. I’m sort of curious about the reasons for your opposition. Did you write it up anywhere?
— SomeCallMeTim · Jan 7, 10:56 PM · #
I wrote this post, but it is (a) almost impossible to read and (b) it is tagged with Suzanne Nossel’s name.
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001559.html
I’m pretty sure I wrote other stuff on this general stuff back then. I basically soured in 2003. You’re right that I sat it out in that I didn’t vote, but I was rooting for Bush to lose.
— Reihan · Jan 7, 11:13 PM · #
I’m having trouble connecting the last sentence of this post with the rest of it.
I wrote this over at Ross Douthat’s blog, I think it’s germane:
There are, clearly, a lot of problems with contemporary conservatism. This, though, is at the center of it, or so it seems to me: over time, culture (which is more powerful than politics) has changed to the point where even people who imagine themselves to be small-government conservatives believe that the government should provide them with certain social programs and safety nets which fall outside of the purview of traditional conservative government. I’m often amazed to meet people who swear up and down that they are fiscal conservatives, and yet ardently support Social Security, Medicare and similar programs. (And, more and more, believe that the government should provide a guarantee of health care to those who can’t afford it. That’s a conservative/Republican revolution that’s in its infancy, if you ask me.)
I think that those are the most profound shifts in this country, the ones that happen slowly, outside of the arena of the politics of resentment, and amount to less a policy shift than a change in culture and framework. I think as more and more traditional conservatives age (as the country is aging), they will find their lives deeply dependent on Medicare and Social Security, and that could, it seems to me, change the conservative attitude towards social programs. I’m interested to see how a long-term libertarian vision deals with that.
— Freddie · Jan 7, 11:57 PM · #