Big Government Conservatism

When someone (usually someone from another country) asks me to explain the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I tend to explain the Republicans as being “the party of smaller government.” But those words tend to slip out uneasily these days; it’s beginning to sound like a lie.


I sometimes wish Bill Clinton was still President. Those were heady days, the dark days of fighting the good fight against the onslaught of socialized medicine destined to be implemented by one Hillary Rodham Clinton. Republicans mocked Clinton when he declared in his 1996 State of the Union address that “The era of Big Government is over,” for claiming to announce the end of big government during a Democratic administration. For example, in 1999, House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-Ohio) said, “The president said the era of big government is over, but he keeps sending us things ... kind of like Santa Claus.” Today, with the exception of very few individuals, if a congressional Republican claimed the era of big government is over, he would be and ought to be mocked.

In both news articles and an editorial (“Big Government Conservatives”) on Monday, The Washington Post took great pleasure in announcing that the Republicans have abandoned their limited government principles. The latest Republican capitulation is a $286 billion transportation measure signed by President Bush that contains a record 6,371 pet projects supported by members of Congress from both parties. The Post points out that “Back in 1987, when Mr. Reagan applied his veto to . . . the highway and mass transit bill, he was offended by the 152 earmarks for pet projects favored by members of Congress.” The GOP honored Reagan’s legacy by appropriating $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California. Are we stuck in some sort of Monty Python time warp? This can’t be happening.

But of course it is happening. The natural tendency of government is to grow no matter who is in control. The lure of maintaining power is strong; one maintains such power by buying votes with spending. Everyone understands that politics is about bringing disparate groups together under a common umbrella, but somehow advocates of small government keep getting the shaft.

The Post editorial concludes: “Remember, Republicans control the Senate and the House as well as the White House. So somebody remind us: Which is the party of big government?” (Meanwhile, the criticism from the pages of The Washington Times is nonexistent.) When the Democrats regain power, how can the Republicans credibly fight against bigger government spending? Critics will rightly question whether Republicans oppose Democrat spending proposals for the sake of partisan opposition to Democrat policies, rather than in the service of higher universal principles. The Republican position will appear to be an act of simple political expediency.

Who will represent the values of liberty and limited government if the Republicans embrace unrestrained government spending? Something must be done.