RateItAll: The Opinion Network

This is Number One in my book (opinions will differ). Small government results in a more friction-free economy, financial growth, personal responsibility, and the ability of Americans to decide how to spend (or save) more of their money, rather than allowing bureaucrats to perform this function.

I'm a firm believer in small government. All governmental employees should be under five feet in height!

These are tough times for conservatives. Second terms are always risky because the rubber hits the road and we find out what a president's true beliefs and causes are. For all his conservative rhetoric, Bush is no conservative when it comes to spending, or governing. I laugh at liberal partisans who point to the post-Katrina aid debacle as an example of Bush's failure. Sorry, that was a "big government" failure. And, oddly, a state and local government failure. Was there cronyism? Sure. Did you point out Clinton's cronyism? Sorry, no points. Everyone failed the test, including Bush for his small part. And the people of New Orleans paid a dear price as did many others. The hatred with which they point at the "tax cuts for the wealthy" and want them eliminated is similarly laughable. "We're running deficits, " they scream. "Clinton balanced the budget! " Oh, right. It wasn't a contrarian republican Congress that obstructed his spending programs, causing him to aver, "the era of big government is over! " It was his fiscal discipline. A discipline conspicuously absent in every other area of his career (and life.) What's missing today is the contrarian majority Clinton "enjoyed. " Eliminating tax cuts (which do stimulate the economy) would be disastrous. Why can't anyone see that we have a spending problem? But it is the hatred directed at Bush that is so notable about these times. Hateful rhetoric. Hateful protests. Hateful comments by elected leaders. Shamefully hateful comments by the leader of the Democrat Party. The completely shameful use of racism as a political trump. The democrats aren't opposed to Bush. They HATE him. And their leaders make it OK to hate him, too. And so they become the party of "I don't know much, but I hate him. " Great platform. That should help move things along. Their excuse is that Bush has divided the country. Not true. They have chosen to hate him and everything he does, to the neglect of their own agenda. They are blinded by their success. Could a democrat president get the mammoth "No Child Left Behind" spending bill passed. No chance. Could a democrat run the type of deficits Bush is running without being called a tax-and-spend liberal? No chance. Even the Supreme Court appointments of Roberts and Miers are democrat successes. Neither was on any conservative's short list of nominees. But the hatred drones on. Elected officials, anti-war protestors, party leaders. Ask any democrat to step down off their soap box and point to what Bush did that was divisive. After you get them to stop screaming about the war (which will probably require an injected sedative) see if there's anything else. They should love his spending, his governmental tinkering, huge government initiatives and takeovers. They can't tell when they're winning. But they sure do know what hatred is and to whom they should direct it.

I was a government major not so long ago, and it has always been my understanding that the single most fundamental aspect of political conservatism was a belief in a small, un-intrusive government. That regulation was bad, welfare was bad, and any attempt to artificially manipulate the free market was bad. That private enterprise would ALWAYS do a job better than the government. Probably the single most confusing aspect of GWB's administration for me has been the introduction of Big Government Conservatism, punctuated and exemplified by attempted federal government interference in the Terri Schiavo case. Since taking office, Bush has grown every single division of federal government, and has skyrocketed government debt. I see American conservative's abandonment of small government as puzzling as if the Libertarian party had abandoned its position on individual rights or if Greenpeace adopted a pro nuclear energy position. Is anyone else confused by this? ** Just wanted to add another thought to this. Wiseguy rightfully commended Wal-Mart for their efficient response to Hurricane Katrina. How is it that a private company is able to respond to a natural disaster far more efficiently than our local and federal governments? Despite the fact that government had spent millions on preparing for precisely this sort of disaster, while Wal-Mart was figuring out how much to charge for a 6 gallon vat of mayo? I'll tell you why. Because Wal-Mart's survival depends on it's ability to be effective. They operate on a tight, competitition driven margins, and they just can't afford to be incompetent. Governments, however, can afford to be incompetent - both Democrats and Republicans. As long as they are delivering pork to their districts, and jumping on the emotional culture war bandwagon issues, they will be elected. This is why George W. Bush's decision to build a behemoth federal government is disastrous for our country. Bush has decided to take resources from the private sector, and shift them to unaccountable politicians. The result? $260M bridges to nowhere, and 5 days to get help into New Orleans. Note this is not a bash on Republicans - even though I think that President Bush is exceptionally incompetent. This is a bash on Big Government. It just can't compete with private enterprise. The less government the better. GWB is wrong that government knows best, and he has led his party down a dangerous path.

Taking into consideration the policies of the current administration you'd have to chuckle at this one... but in theory yes, conservatives generally in principle believe government works better locally. However, this does not mean that conservatives believe in no government, nor do conservatives believe there is little active role for government. There is a very complex discussion taking place within the conservative movement between the paleo-conservative and neo-conservative branches. Paleo-cons are what is traditionally understood to be conservative- in the ideological make of Barry Goldwater, Pat Buchanan or Samuel Huntington. Paleo-conservatism is marked by an austerity with tradition and freedom that is vested in limits upon government. Philosophically Paleo-cons are in concert with Neo-cons but are in disagreement upon the application of competing conservative principles. Paleo-cons believe the fabric of our society is culturally nurtured by private institutions, that through metaphysics human goods are deducible and positive law should embody what is fundamental about human nature- both vice and virtue. The discernment between the Paleo and Neo-cons is what the viable application of positive law is. Neo-cons believe in a larger society positive institutions can promote human goods in a more active manner. Now I doubt anyone would consider farm subsidies a fundamental human good, nor can it be considered moral crusading but the theories aren't simplistic as prioritizing principles and applying them in a color by numbers process.

UPDATED (for clarity):I agree with magellan's premise. I think Bush has made some big mistakes (although I would argue that the Schaivo case has less to do with the expansion of government than liberals would have us believe). Bushs problem is that he is (like Kerry, but perhaps not to as severe a degree) trying to appeal to everybody. He sees conservatives as more likely to budge on their fiscal standpoints than their social standpoints. He thinks if he has a few liberal fiscal policies, then hes more likely to woo some disloyal Democrat votes. This has cause people like magellan and me to become upset. For the Republican Party to survive, it must select someone who, not only respects social conservatism, but the capitalist and federalist ideas of conservatism as well. P.S. - Magellan, I always knew you'd be a libretarian if they had kept to the formula.