Downsizing government is not a bad idea when --but only
when-- it is necessary
"Right-sizing" is a far better philosophy.
Case in point, many Republicans are now angry at Obama's
plans to make major cuts
in defense spending. By their reasoning, DOD needs to be
the right size, and that size
is about the same as now, and could well be larger if
circumstances warrant.
Conversely, Homeland Security, which obviously is
important, is nonetheless bloated,
incredibly wasteful, and grossly oversized. About which
Republicans are virtually silent.
Which is to say that Libertarian rhetoric is simplistic
and does not address our real problems.
Its very simplicity explains much of its appeal. Many
people are professionals in occupations
in which it is a high virtue to simplify as much as
possible. Things may still be complicated
but simplification remains a primary goal.
This leads to a question about how professional background
conditions our politics,
anyone's private politics. But the fact is that
contemporary government in the United States
is incredibly complicated and must be addressed as such.
The fact is also that, IMHO.
a populist appeal would be superior to a libertarian
approach to the problems of
excess size & excess gvt spending.
Here is the crux of the situation : A
populist appeal identifies the culprits and, hence,
allows for targeted remedies that have promise of actually
getting the job done.
A libertarian appeal simply targets size and spending ;
the culprits go free, as has
been the case with probably thousands of Wall Street
finance speculators
who were largely responsible for bringing us the mess that
commenced in 2007 - 2008,
and who, today, are still bringing home million dollar
bonuses. Let us not overlook
other guilty parties, corrupt administrators at Fannie and
Freddie, and members
of Congress like Barney Frank. They certainly deserve their
share of the blame.
But in what way does libertarian philosophy help us deal
with the actual issues ?
Enough of my editorializing. The article below is
interesting in identifying the
role that Reagan has played in popularizing libertarian
ideas in the ranks
of the Republican Party. Any theory that says that
Libertarianism is not
a major factor in US politics --even when we may not like
it--
simply cannot be taken seriously.
Billy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Post >
Politics|Thu,
Jan. 05 2012 05:40 PM EDT
Similarities Between Reagan Conservatives and
Libertarians
With the unexpected rise of devout social conservative
Rick Santorum and the previous surge of self-proclaimed
libertarian Ron Paul, it is clear that the GOP base is not
only looking for answers on how to steer the country but their
own Republican Party as well.
Conservatives and libertarians have many differences in
ideologies, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
However, the two schools of thought are more intertwined and
more similar than one may think.
On Tuesday, Santorum’s own nephew, 19-year-old John Garver,
wrote an op-ed in the Daily Caller criticizing his uncle in
support of Paul’s more libertarian views.
“If you want another big government politician who supports
the status quo to run our country, you should vote for my
uncle Rick Santorum,” wrote Garver.
In a light-hearted response to his nephew, Santorum told
The Daily Caller that Garver is “just going through a
phase.”
“He’s a Ron Paul supporter, God bless him,” he said. “I
mean, it’s a phase. I understand it. And so we all go
through those things. God bless Johnny, it’s wonderful.”
Like us on Facebook
Later on in the discussion, The Daily Caller reports that
Santorum said explicitly that he is not a libertarian.
“I’m a conservative,” he said. “I am a Reagan conservative.
I am not a libertarian. And the people who are calling me a
big government guy are libertarians.”
However, what Santorum may not have recalled, at least in
the moment he made this declaration, is that Ronald Reagan,
a hero to many conservatives, thought of himself as a
libertarian.
“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is
libertarianism,” Reagan said in 1975.
“The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government
interference or less centralized authority or more
individual freedom and this is a pretty general description
also of what libertarianism is.”
He continued, “Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all
the things that the present group who call themselves
Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think
that like in any political movement there are shades, and
there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of
wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are
legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need
in an orderly society for some government to maintain
freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The
strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We
have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have
to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on
my statement that I think that libertarianism and
conservatism are travelling the same path.”
Reagan correctly pointed out that libertarianism, just like
any other brand of thought, has many different splinters.
The libertarian that Reagan was discussing is someone that
recognizes the need for government only in situations that
are absolutely necessary and is not an advocate of no
government at all. There is a term for someone who wants no
government at all, and it’s not called libertarianism. It’s
called anarchism. At least that is what Reagan was trying to
point out in his ’75 speech.
But if Reagan was such an advocate of small government, why
did the size of government increase during his
administration? Many people on the political left use this
fact to paint Reagan as a hypocrite who campaigned on small
government only to watch it grow under his watch.
Lee Edwards, distinguished fellow in conservative thought
at the Heritage Foundation, told The Christian Post that
Reagan did in fact slow the growth of government.
“There was a 4 percent increase in government spending
under his predecessor, Carter. Reagan cut that in half.
Government spending only increased by 2 percent under
Reagan. It increased by 10 percent under Bush 41. So while
critics are correct in saying that government grew under
Reagan, he was able to slow the growth a lot.”
The desire for small government is what connects
libertarians and conservatives and this is the foundational
principle for both thoughts. The tell-tale sign of the
conservative – desire for low taxes – stems from libertarian
thought.
Christopher Cook writes in the Western Free Press: “If
taxation is required, then it means putting a gun to one
man’s head and taking from him what he worked for in order
to make something happen for another man. If we allow the
state to do that, it should be for a darned good reason. We
should be sure that it is something the state MUST do,
because we cannot do it ourselves. And we should be sure it
is being done at the lowest division of government
possible/reasonable. It should be done with as minimal
intrusion possible to our natural rights.”
Most people who consider themselves traditional
conservatives, including Santorum, would agree with this
argument and advertise it as a Reagan conservative
principle.
It is also fundamentally libertarian.
-- 