Running on Reform

The New York Times ^ | 01/03/04 | David Brooks

[Pokey78]

The Republican Party has a problem this election year. It's the governing party, but it lacks a governing philosophy.

The G.O.P. used to have a governing philosophy: reducing the size of the state. This was a useful goal because it was the one thing all Republican factions could agree upon. The business community wanted to reduce the public sector because it stifled growth. Social conservatives wanted to shrink the nanny state because it produced dependency. Libertarians and populists wanted to reduce government because it gave too much power to bureaucratic elites.

But reducing the size of government can no longer be Republicans' animating principle. In the first place, many of the worst excesses of government have been addressed. It's harder to argue that government programs reward bad behavior after welfare reform. It's harder to argue that government stifles economic growth after a generation of tax-rate reduction and the awesome boom of the 1990's.

But the main reason reducing the size of government can't be the party's animating principle is that Republicans have no credibility on this subject. During the Reagan years, Republicans tried to cut the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling Congress. In 1995, Republicans tried to reduce the size of government and failed, then blamed the Democrats controlling the White House. Now Republicans control everything, and over the past three years the size of government has still increased, not even counting the war on terror.

Republicans have learned through hard experiences that most Americans do not actually want their government sharply cut. Voters are skeptical of government, but they elect candidates who promise solutions for their problems, not ones who tear down departments. They do not respond to politicians whose primary message is "No, no, no."

With its old governing philosophy obsolete, the Republican Party is adrift domestically. On Capitol Hill, Republicans lack a set of goals to steer by. At the White House, the president speaks idealistically on foreign policy, but prosaically on domestic affairs. The foreign policy members of his cabinet look big; the domestic policy members look small. That's not only because the personalities are different, it's because the domestic cabinet members have been given less ambitious jobs to do.

Meanwhile, corporate lobbyists have jumped into the vacuum. If principles aren't going to guide the Republican Party, the opportunists are happy to take control.

Fortunately, there is one Republican leader who, at least at one point, recognized that the 21st-century G.O.P. can no longer be the party of Barry Goldwater. That's George W. Bush. When he ran for president in 2000, he made it quite clear that trimming government was not his main goal. "The American government is not the enemy of the people," he declared. "At times it is wasteful and grasping. But we must correct it, not disdain it. Government must be carefully limited — but strong and active and respected within those bounds. It must act for the common good."

Bush promoted a new domestic governing philosophy: compassionate conservatism. To be honest, that hasn't panned out. So the task this year, starting with the State of the Union speech, is to come up with a new governing philosophy that will give domestic policy a sense of idealism, ambition and shape.

For my money, the best organizing principle for Republicans centers on the word "reform." Republicans can modernize the (mostly Democratic) accomplishments of the 20th century. That would mean entitlement reform, tax reform, more welfare reform, education reform, immigration reform, tort reform and on and on. In all these areas, Republicans can progressively promote change, while Democrats remain the churlish defenders of the status quo.

Republicans could remind voters, as Rudy Giuliani reminded New Yorkers, that we don't have to live with so-called intractable problems. If crime and child poverty can be reduced, then so can the education gap between whites and minorities. The tax code can be simplified, and entitlements made sustainable.

It's looking increasingly as if Democrats will be the party of anger in 2004. Republicans may as well be the party of reform and hope.

[GeronL]

In the first place, many of the worst excesses of government have been addressed.

HELLO???????? what planet are you calling from??? I'm not interesting in buying any!!! Now go away!!

[Support Free Republic]

Got a nose for the news?

Then come join us anytime!
No need to spend money on clothes!
Casual attire welcome!
Donate the money you save on your wardrobe to Free Republic!

[savage henry]

Notice he doesn't say 'welfare reform', but rather 'entitlement reform'.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It used to be that Democrats had figured out the right role for Republicans. Pubbies were allowed to exist to trim government, balance the budget a bit. I've read their words - very approving of this thankless task, setting the stage for a new round of Democrat creativity.

Pubbie Pols got tired of that action after Eisenhower. Nixon rolled up his sleeves and got into the act of economic manipulation (central planning), failing of course.

Now, the Pubbies role has been changed from just saving up some money for the next splurge. Now, they get to actually fix some of the damage left by Democrat recklessness. Sheesh.

[pdjplano]

[quote]Republicans have learned through hard experiences that most Americans do not actually want their government sharply cut.[/quote]
I disagree with this, I believe most do actually want their government cut, and the liberal machine hasn't won out brainwashing us all yet. I hope to show that with my platform in my district, and become one of I hope many taking up the charge to reduce the size of this monster we call the federal government.

The only reason the Dems are being marginalized IMO is that the Republicans have become them on domestic issues, and there is no alternative to true Constitution supporting people. My hope was that it was a big rouse by the Bush administration to win votes enough to get in power to actually do real cuts, but that hope is completely gone after reading about the people in power and listening to the speeches by Bush and others like him.

[KC_Conspirator]

Many Republican ideas work and the democrats have not had a new idea in 40 years. Until the democrats stop supporting terrorists and being weak on defense, then the public will keep electing Republicans to do that.

[Uncle Miltie]

"But the main reason reducing the size of government can't be the party's animating principle is that Republicans have no credibility on this subject."

Bump for Truth.

[goldstategop]

As someone coming from the neo-conservative tradition, David Brooks approach appeals to me as having the twin virtues of giving conservatives a governing philopsophy for the 21st century as well as putting the Democrats permanently on the defensive. I've never viewed dismantling the welfare state as politically doable. My thinking has always been we take what exists and use the instruments of the liberal state to advance what I regard as the RIGHT VALUES. If we do that, it doesn't really matter what the government looks like; what matters is what it does to enlarge American freedoms, encourage the growth of private intemediating institutions between the state and the individual, and strengthen personal responsibility and the state of the family. Call it reform, call it whatever you like and its towards these fundamental objectives to which conservative domestic policy should be directed towards the rest of this century.

[RJCogburn]

That's George W. Bush. When he ran for president in 2000, he made it quite clear that trimming government was not his main goal. "The American government is not the enemy of the people," he declared. "At times it is wasteful and grasping. But we must correct it, not disdain it. Government must be carefully limited — but strong and active and respected within those bounds. It must act for the common good."

About the final nail in the Reagan governmental coffin.

[yoswif]

The current level of cost and power of the federal government will require the average child in America to pay over 80% of their lifetime earnings in federal taxes. A lot of real reform in the direction of limited government can be justified (do it for the children) to make government sustainable.

[NutCrackerBoy]

What matters is what [government] does to enlarge American freedoms, encourage the growth of private intemediating institutions between the state and the individual, and strengthen personal responsibility and the state of the family.

Those are very strong words. Conceding the fight to dismantle the welfare state was the moral equivalent of punting on 4th down from your own twenty yard line. But even the "reduced" goals that you stated will be a titanic fight in the 21st century. Conservatives will always be painted as holding back the glorious future of The Nurturing Society.

[OESY]

For my money, the best organizing principle for Republicans centers on the word "reform." Republicans can modernize the (mostly Democratic) accomplishments of the 20th century. That would mean entitlement reform, tax reform, more welfare reform, education reform, immigration reform, tort reform and on and on. In all these areas, Republicans can progressively promote change, while Democrats remain the churlish defenders of the status quo. Republicans could remind voters, as Rudy Giuliani reminded New Yorkers, that we don't have to live with so-called intractable problems. If crime and child poverty can be reduced, then so can the education gap between whites and minorities. The tax code can be simplified, and entitlements made sustainable.

Brooks may be onto something here, but I'd like to know what he expected from "compassionate conservatism" that he claims didn't work out. Is it because Democrats are furious Bush pushed his own agenda rather than letting himself get screwed by Democrats like his father who tried to play ball with them? Mitchell and Foley took Bush 41 to the cleaners. Is Brooks disappointed nothing was learned?