Larison: what being the small goverment party means in practice

[Winehole23]

Greg Scoblete marvels at the contradictions in the Republican platform:

It’s a breathtaking transformation and one that is, ideologically at least, nonsensical. The national security state is the an hesis of limited government.

Scoblete doesn’t put too much importance on party platforms, but he’s right that they indicate what activist members of the party think. The contradictions of the platform are partly the product of trying to cobble together policy views of an unwieldy coalition. Despite a high degree of formal ideological uniformity inside the GOP (a huge majority of Republicans identifies as conservative), there is just as much incoherence as one would expect to find in a party that aspires to represent a major portion of a continental nation-state. For example, there is no logical reason why pro-life Christians and evangelicals support the party that is the most aggressive in its hegemonist foreign policy. For different reasons, these people or their parents joined the Republican coalition over thirty years ago, and they remain in it long after the reasons for joining disappeared or became politically irrelevant. The modern Republican coalition exists because of historical accidents dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, and it is held together today mostly by shared grievances. The platform reflects that.


As I said elsewhere today, limited government is a useful phrase for concealing a government of enormous power and intrusiveness. The national security state is the an hesis of a cons utional government of limited and enumerated powers, but that isn’t really the limited government that many contemporary advocates of limited government have in mind. Theirs is the “limited but energetic government” of David Brooks and Paul Ryan, and it includes more than enough room for the national security and warfare state. “Limited government” is the phrase that big-government conservatives use to paper over the fact that they favor a powerful and activist federal government, albeit one with different spending priorities for the benefit of different interest groups.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ns-in-practice

[101A]

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ns-in-practice

Just wanted to post in this thread.

The article is accurate at identifying the problem; unfortunately - no solutions other than, presumably, "well, Republicans ought to be more intellectually honest and say what they are."

We know THAT'S not going to happen, so rants like these amount to wastes of paper/bandwidth. I guess it makes one feel better that they said it (guilty of that myself on numerous occasions daily).

Is the fraction of American that actually want "limited government" so small, that a party that TRULY espouses such cannot get traction; or are that many people simply deluded by the Republican party and its rhetoric - with lack of action? I still hold out hope for the latter - the former being reason to pack it in.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just wanted to post in this thread.

The article is accurate at identifying the problem; unfortunately - no solutions other than, presumably, "well, Republicans ought to be more intellectually honest and say what they are."

We know THAT'S not going to happen, so rants like these amount to wastes of paper/bandwidth. I guess it makes one feel better that they said it (guilty of that myself on numerous occasions daily).

I disagree. Momentum and pressure has to be built to enact change. The fact that the GOP is starting to see mounting pressure within it's historically editorial ranks, is good and needs to be encouraged.

[boutons_deux]

"mounting pressure"

to do what?

[TeyshaBlue]

Assume some form of honest/coherent policy/message for starters.

[101A]

TB - Are there enough to people in the country committed/desiring TRULY limited govt. - and all that entails to keep 1/2 of a two party system relevant?

I suspect "no" - that as long as we have a duopolistic system - being "intellectually honest" simply gets you beat. The Republicans, as the OP points out, have built a coalition of people committed to "limited government" AND to spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense.

(personal stakes admission: don't want the "limited defense" thing to happen too soon; my boy is starting Nuke school with the Navy later this year - if MEPS clears his surgically repaired knee, that is)

[TeyshaBlue]

I think the consistency and accuracy of policy is probably the first change that needs to happen.

[boutons_deux]

Repug party is too factionalized, esp now campaigning, sending conflicting messages to the different pieces of the electorate they've alienated.

"small govt" for Repugs is BIG (gamed, corrupted, compromised, captured) GOVT for the 1% and corps, and small govt for the 99%.

[ElNono]

I actually think the exact opposite TB. I think the GOP is actually going through a process of chaos both in it's message and policy proposals, an iden y crisis of sorts. I think it's part of trying to cater to fairly dissimilar ideologic currents. You have the baby boomers being phased out, the neocons, the religious folk, the tea party guys... I also don't think there's much 'mounting pressure' because I don't think it's something that can necessarily be controlled... eventually, I expect it to mature into 'something'...

[TeyshaBlue]

I actually think the exact opposite TB. I think the GOP is actually going through a process of chaos both in it's message and policy proposals, an iden y crisis of sorts. I think it's part of trying to cater to fairly dissimilar ideologic currents. You have the baby boomers being phased out, the neocons, the religious folk, the tea party guys... I also don't think there's much 'mounting pressure' because I don't think it's something that can necessarily be controlled... eventually, I expect it to mature into 'something'...

I think the recent stream of criticism from conservative media/blogs is definitely indicative of pressure from a source heretofore, largely complacent. And yes, the GOP is in a state of chaos...and that's being highlighted by the aforementioned media. I don't think control is necessary...the evolution needs to be organic to be successful.

[TeyshaBlue]

Repug party is to factionalized, esp now campaigning, sending conflicting messages to the different pieces of the electorate they've alienated.

Precisely.

[Homeland Security]

Democracy really only works when a nation has a unifying principle. In a lot of countries, that is blood or culture. That is the concept behind the nation-state. Take Mexico, for example. The Mexican national iden y is based upon the mixture of Spanish and Mesoamerican blood and culture. Its national iden y is mestizo. Even after people's families have been out of Mexico for a couple of generations, they still self-identify with that national iden y, because blood runs thick.

Maybe a long time ago, the U.S. had something unofficially along those lines. But, officially, the unifying principle behind the United States was the belief in its democratic values. Kind of a tautology, I know, but that's what it was. (That's why a Mexican-American can think he identifies with both nations -- Mexican blood, American values, as it were).

That's gone now. The white population has split into two different countries with different values and beliefs, and the minorities that never got assimilated into the mainstream culture before the big split are now just floating interest groups. , it's all about interest groups now. The Republican Party serves white males, married women, and evangelicals. The Democratic Party serves single women, racial and ethnic minorities, sexuals, and the liberal elite. The point of government now is to grab hold of its coercive power and borrowed largesse to channel the bounty to your own interest groups. There are no "higher values" and there won't be again for a long time; all the talk about them is just lip service.

Zero-sum interest-group democracy can't last, because at some point one group or the other will not be able to accept being out of power and will look to upend the system in favor of one where they hold power indefinitely.

I'm several years ahead of you on all this. It's nice that you're arguing about elections, but they are elections in a political system that simply will not endure much longer, and since you're not ready to accept that, you won't be prepared to deal with the aftermath. Therefore, you will serve me.

[Clipper Nation]

Is the fraction of American that actually want "limited government" so small, that a party that TRULY espouses such cannot get traction; or are that many people simply deluded by the Republican party and its rhetoric - with lack of action? I still hold out hope for the latter - the former being reason to pack it in.

It's more like a generational divide, tbh.... younger generations ACTUALLY want limited government - unfortunately, the lazy, selfish, gullible, party-line Boomers who lap up every expensive handout and every undeclared war abroad without question while expecting their kids to foot the bill are STILL the voting majority in this country....