« Darfur and the Art of Persuasion | Main | Could Kerry Really Have Been Worse? »

February 22, 2006

Whose Ox?

Rich Lowry has a column arguing against big-government conservatism that does a reasonable job of pointing to some of the flaws in President Bush's version of conservatism. As Lowry notes, the government has grown dramatically under President Bush's stewardship with little evidence it has become any more efficient or effective. It is just a lot bigger.

Having said that, though, Lowry also illustrates why it is so hard to trim government. As part of his argument he points to the Patriot Act and the NSA spying program as examples of flexible government that make the country stronger. He may be correct on the merits, although most of the argument that can be made in favor of government action to prevent terrorist attack currently relies on the fact there has not been a major terrorist incident on American soil since 9/11. Since that situation could easily change on short notice, it's hard to be sure just how effective those actions have been. But even assuming the Patriot Act and the NSA program are both very carefully and properly tailored to better secure America while protecting essential liberties, the other problem remains: those same justifications can be offered for any government program.

Let's take a look at the issue Lowry focuses on, the government's response to Katrina. As was reasonably evident at the time, the government botched its response to Katrina pretty thoroughly, from local to federal levels. But there is a strong consensus among the American people that mitigation of natural disasters is a government function. Therefore, I could argue that we need to spend what it takes to fix that function with as much legitimacy as Lowry calls for strong national defense programs. My programs may not be as cost-effective, but since there is a consensus in favor of them, they're going to get the funds they need, even if they fail to accomplish the functions given to them.

The same is true of most government programs. Like it or not, the consensus view of government in modern America is that of a parent taking care of its children. People expect the government to do things for them, regardless of what President Kennedy may have wanted. Every government program has a constituency, and while many of them may not fit with our personal conception of what government should and should not do, that battle has been fought and lost. Mr. Lowry will speak up for the Patriot Act and the NSA program, and they will get their funds. Others will speak up for their pet programs, and they too will get their funds. Opponents may wail and gnash their teeth, but until the system changes, the results will remain the same.

Posted at February 22, 2006 09:07 AM

Andrew Olmsted

Comment policy

I apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://andrewolmsted.com/mt/pings.cgi/1109

Comments

I don't agree with your parent-child analogy, but I do agree that all government programs have constituencies. Which, of course, is why these programs exist.

I think it's also necessary to consider that what looks like "government parenting" to someone outside of that constituency might look very differently from the inside. To the people those programs assist, those are the kinds of things that government exists for.

I know social welfare programs are a major hotbutton for many on the Right but it's also true that for most of our population, letting poor people starve, or freeze to death...well, it just doesn't fit their view of what "America" is. So those programs aren't going away either. At least, not until we have a political party that has the will and the strength to remake our economy so that those on the bottom can realistically achieve financial security on their own.

Can I ask (not contentiously, just sincere curiosity) which programs you'd most like to see disappear?

Posted by: Anne at February 22, 2006 07:27 PM

Actually, that was the point I attempted unsuccessfully to make: what person A considers essential person B thinks is frivolous, and vice versa. And in the political system we have today, that means we get both.

As for what I'd cut out of the federal budget, that's an excellent question. Pretty much everything, honestly, but if I had to start somewhere it would be with the Departments of Education and Commerce. Welfare would actually be well down the list, because it's a Hell of a lot easier for me to rationalize that then forcing a one-size-fits all concept on education or providing welfare to corporations that are supposed to be creating wealth, not taking it from the government. There would be a lot of other things I'd like to zap, but if I had to start somewhere, I believe that would be where.

Posted by: Andrew at February 22, 2006 09:13 PM

As I see it, the problem of government is where should specific actions be taken? Education should be taken care of only at the very local level. I know, poor people would get the shaft in this scenario, but this would be no different than what has gone on in this country since its inception and people have managed to not only survive, but prosper (A. Lincoln, anyone?)

If the fed only took on those issues that are national or international in scope, it could probably run with half or less of the money it now consumes. My own belief is that state and local governments could then use some of that money to improve things at the local level. This would allow people to control the spending costs at the lowest possible level.

Not going to happen without a revolution though.

Posted by: wes at February 26, 2006 08:11 PM

People don't see what is the seious questions that may com with any issue that makes the public issues, when they do come to light therew seem to be an issue to some sort to a chose being, what is new and how will it become to make a writter to inch up the poll that said then there is the hit and any ameracan is not or will not willing except thought law ever give up america It not that it fair for other contries to the same but it is a fact that we are and do have lux. more so then other nations then again we are the thoughts to the world as the big and wise fair and judging to thoughs that continuly place harm to the weaker a fact of nature that has plaged my life but I also seen another path that I have to give creit to my wife. that not to say I've learnd to uses the head more in conflicts would and has proven to be a very strong case , unfutunatly I a so leaner to the most impotant of ethics and to well being towards others . this is not to say I started problems it just seem to follow me . My beilf is that if I ever start the problem then I'll loses and as hard as it might be this holds true to my whole life and is why I'v never lost and never ran but gotten better at finding away in the using comencense. as to this short profil ios true to a lot of amerecans they been spoiled and we need to have a closer relation ship with our goverment for they are us and we are them michel

Posted by: michael at February 27, 2006 08:37 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?