It’s never pretty for the Republicans when George Will lays the wood to them, this time over the Abramoff scandal:
The national pastime is no longer baseball, it is rent-seeking — bending public power for private advantage. There are two reasons why rent-seeking has become so lurid, but those reasons for today’s dystopian politics are reasons why most suggested cures seem utopian.
The first reason is big government — the regulatory state. This year Washington will disperse $2.6 trillion, which is a small portion of Washington’s economic consequences, considering the costs and benefits distributed by incessant fiddling with the tax code, and by government’s regulatory fidgets.
Second, House Republicans, after 40 years in the minority, have, since 1994, wallowed in the pleasures of power. They have practiced DeLayism, or “K Street conservatism.” This involves exuberantly serving rent-seekers, who hire K Street lobbyists as helpers. For House Republicans the aim of the game is to build political support. But Republicans shed their conservatism in the process of securing their seats in the service, they say, of conservatism.
. . . “K Street conservatism” compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy. Until the Bush administration, with its incontinent spending, unleashed an especially conscienceless Republican control of both political branches, conservatives pretended to believe in limited government. The last five years, during which the number of registered lobbyists more than doubled, have proved that, for some Republicans, conservative virtue was merely the absence of opportunity for vice.
Read the entire piece.
Voters don’t want limited government. They want a social safety net.
In choosing between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, voters picked Clinton.
Clinton’s (and now Bush’s) third way is, unfortunately, about the best those of us who favor truly limited government are going to get in the current climate. So, you trade spending for HSAs in the medicare bill, and you trade spending for standards and vouchers in NCLB. You get some market reforms of large-government at least, and you try to give individuals more of a stake in matters (ownership society anyone?).
What would Will have limited-government conservatives do? Abolishing the Dept of Education and Ag Dept and Fed Welfare programs and the like appeals to about 35% of the electorate. if that much. Texas Dems can vouch for how successful it is to appeal consistently to 35% of the electorate! 🙂
None of that’s excusing any lobbying scandals, which I’ve purposely not addressed. I’m more interested in what you and the smart readers here would propose for Republicans to win elections AND remain true to limited-government principles. Is there a better solution than the third way that will also win elections (keep in mind the Gingrich/Clinton divide — it hasn’t gone away)? If so, what?