The defining premise usually used (in these days of tanking and now near-thirty-percent approval ratings) to disassociate the failures of Bush, the House, the Senate, all their advisors, all their supporters, and the cats they loved as children from so-called true conservatism is primarily that true fiscal/governmental conservatives suppose themselves to value “restrained federal power”, aka small government, which Bush allegedly does not. This, though, is a load of horsehockey. Fiscal and other conservatives may say that they value small government, but it is a fact of the movement that when in a position to actually implement those policies, they do not.

hunter at daily kos

it’s a fair point, i suppose, to dismiss the rhetoric used by politicians to get elected as not having much relationship to what they do after they settle into their nice new offices. it’s a rather common political game that everybody plays. this is not solely the domain of republicans or conservatives.

it is suggested, by some on the left, that the small-government conservatism that we get nostalgic for cannot exist as a permanent fixture in public policy. they see our philosophy on the role of goverment as “unsustainable” and see the current congressional republican failures as flaws of this kind of conservatism. this is an incomplete answer to the question, “what the heck is wrong with the republican party?” the left believes that this failure can be attributed to a lack of willingness by all of the true believers in conservatism to actually follow through with implementing their agenda. it’s not that simple.

here’s the truth of the matter: small government types are an endangered species in congress. not all conservatives, or for that matter, republicans, subscribe to that philosophy. that’s why we have such unchecked federal spending, and in addition to that, not much interest by the controlling party in making any changes in that area. the republicans may have the majority, but that doesn’t mean that conservatives of this stripe are controlling policy.

that’s certainly true of the man presently occupying the oval office. it doesn’t matter how many policy advisors he has that are sympathetic to the cause. there’s no “alleged” about bush 43 and opposition to the idea of shrinking government. george w. bush hasn’t proposed reducing government programs/dependence at any point in his presidential life, and that’s all on him. he has never been a small government guy. EVER. this wasn’t why we elected him. it was about the GWOT and appointing conservative judges to the supreme court, which he has done.

continuing from the kos post:

And that is not a unique phenomenon: it is a traceable pattern of the movement. They shuffle the tasks of government around, yes; they close so called “liberal” governmental tasks such as environmental protections and citizen welfare and safety programs, while hyper-boosting “conservative” governmental tasks such as defense spending and business-based “incentives” and other sops, and they outsource basic government tasks from government to for-profit industry without actually removing those tasks from the mandates (or budgets) of government, but post-Nixon conservatives have been remarkably consistent in their actual actions: increase spending; increase deficits; increase government; increase interference in citizen lives under banners of “religion” and “morality”. At no point in the modern-day movement have conservative adherents actually implemented this notion of small government or fiscal responsibility that they supposedly carry around with them as guiding force. It’s the label on the package, yes: but it’s not in the candy bar.

what most government regulations on business and industry lack is any sense of balance. either the scales are tipped in favor of business (which they generally seems to be right now) or they favor excessive environmental controls on essentials like gasoline. the results of those regulations usually have more of a financial impact on the average consumer than an environmental one.

let’s address this question of the difference in funding priorities between the republicans and the democrats. we consider national defense and military spending more important than saving the spotted owl. call us crazy. we also believe that the current welfare system is keeping people in poverty, not helping them achieve independence and to become successful, productive members of society. that’s why reform is absolutely necessary in this area. it would be a different thing entirely if all these social programs worked, but they don’t.

this is not at all meant to excuse the men and women abusing your tax dollars. if there is any turnover from government control to control by private industry, then it goes without saying that those items should be removed from the federal budget. shame on any member on congress who does not help to ensure that this happens. there is no defense for the reckless spending. there is also no defense for the trend toward increased government regulation or creating more ineffective bureaucracy.

there is no easy answer to fix this problem. if it were just a matter of replacing all those who agree with the status quo of feeding this government beast, then there would be more hope for real change in the system. we can’t just replace the people. we must reform the system that perpetuates big government, or nothing will ever change.

related:

Republicans and the Flight of Opportunity–david frum (cato)
Why Advocates Of Small Government Are Like A Certain Hockey-Mask-Wearing Serial Killer–john hawkins (rwn)