The (anti) Conservative Manifesto
I would argue, and this is a bit much for a Sunday morning discussion for sure, that the GOP is a fundementally flawed majority party. The nature of their ideology makes them the ideal watchdog minority party. As critics of rampant Democratic spending and excess, the Republicans do very well. They are good at serving in that capacity.
However, when the Republicans become entrenched in power (as they had been for the past 12 years), we discover three things:
1) They eventually come to be seduced into just as much, if not more, spending than their Democratic counterparts. It seems there exists a force that makes it very difficult to avoid pork spending if you become an incumbent for some time. The GOP, like the Dems before them, start making rationalizations for the earmarks they approve ("I'll approve this bridge project now, because it will help me get re-elected, and ultimately having a small government guy like myself in office is what's best for the district.").
Furthermore, as the GOP doesn't support so many governmental programs like the Dems, the spending on pork might actually cut into the financing of "legitimate" (at least in the left's eyes) government programs. After all, to conservatives, the government has had that amount of spending already. It's just going elsewhere now. Social programs to corporare welfare. A big problem is that corporations demand more money for the same level of satisfaction as the poor. This, of course, ignores the fact that it's questionable as to whether these interests should get any money in the first place.
What clearly develops, however, is a party of empty rhetoric. A small-party in mae government that redistributes wealth just as much as the left, except for the makeup of the recipients of that redistribution.
2) They become obsessed with maintaining that power, whether it be by gerrymandering, disciplined adherence to the party line not observable amongst the Democrats, and failures to expose scandals within their own party for fear of the political repurcussions. i.e. Texas, Tom Delay's grip on the party for so many years, and Mark Foley. Then there are the libertarian-leaning Republicans, who swallow their pride and allow the party to be hijacked by the Christian Coalition. All of this for marginally lower taxes (or is it lower marginal taxes ;) )
3) The Republicans are fundementally poor governors (and I mean this not in the sense of each state's executive, but rather as "those that govern"). There's an easy reason for this. The GOP, allegedly, does not believe in government. Why should we expect them to be good at running the government?
The best example I could think of is this:
If a person did not believe that a child could be taught by anyone, but rather had to learn on her own through books and self-study, why would we expect that individual to be anythiong but a poor teacher?
A more real world example is GWB appointing Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. If you don't ideologically support the existence of FEMA, you likely won't lose sleep over deciding who is best to run the organization.
So that's my theory as to why the Republicans are not good at running the government, and are a much more admirable party when they are out of power. It's difficult to argue that the Democrats are some ideal party, but at least they govern as they say they will. At least they believe their spending helps those that need it. At least they are disorganized enough (and yes, this is a strength) to not fall lockstep with party objectives (at least not to the degree that the GOP was able to achieve). If you disagree with this last point, regardless of the events in CT this past election, I don't see any support nationally for the Democrats to excommunicate Joe Lieberman. In fact, many Democrats supported him all along (I was not one of them).
However, when the Republicans become entrenched in power (as they had been for the past 12 years), we discover three things:
1) They eventually come to be seduced into just as much, if not more, spending than their Democratic counterparts. It seems there exists a force that makes it very difficult to avoid pork spending if you become an incumbent for some time. The GOP, like the Dems before them, start making rationalizations for the earmarks they approve ("I'll approve this bridge project now, because it will help me get re-elected, and ultimately having a small government guy like myself in office is what's best for the district.").
Furthermore, as the GOP doesn't support so many governmental programs like the Dems, the spending on pork might actually cut into the financing of "legitimate" (at least in the left's eyes) government programs. After all, to conservatives, the government has had that amount of spending already. It's just going elsewhere now. Social programs to corporare welfare. A big problem is that corporations demand more money for the same level of satisfaction as the poor. This, of course, ignores the fact that it's questionable as to whether these interests should get any money in the first place.
What clearly develops, however, is a party of empty rhetoric. A small-party in mae government that redistributes wealth just as much as the left, except for the makeup of the recipients of that redistribution.
2) They become obsessed with maintaining that power, whether it be by gerrymandering, disciplined adherence to the party line not observable amongst the Democrats, and failures to expose scandals within their own party for fear of the political repurcussions. i.e. Texas, Tom Delay's grip on the party for so many years, and Mark Foley. Then there are the libertarian-leaning Republicans, who swallow their pride and allow the party to be hijacked by the Christian Coalition. All of this for marginally lower taxes (or is it lower marginal taxes ;) )
3) The Republicans are fundementally poor governors (and I mean this not in the sense of each state's executive, but rather as "those that govern"). There's an easy reason for this. The GOP, allegedly, does not believe in government. Why should we expect them to be good at running the government?
The best example I could think of is this:
If a person did not believe that a child could be taught by anyone, but rather had to learn on her own through books and self-study, why would we expect that individual to be anythiong but a poor teacher?
A more real world example is GWB appointing Michael Brown as the head of FEMA. If you don't ideologically support the existence of FEMA, you likely won't lose sleep over deciding who is best to run the organization.
So that's my theory as to why the Republicans are not good at running the government, and are a much more admirable party when they are out of power. It's difficult to argue that the Democrats are some ideal party, but at least they govern as they say they will. At least they believe their spending helps those that need it. At least they are disorganized enough (and yes, this is a strength) to not fall lockstep with party objectives (at least not to the degree that the GOP was able to achieve). If you disagree with this last point, regardless of the events in CT this past election, I don't see any support nationally for the Democrats to excommunicate Joe Lieberman. In fact, many Democrats supported him all along (I was not one of them).
posted by bub at 12:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home