"There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the G.O.P. has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days," writes David Brooks, "This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future." He's right. He's also right about this:
The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the “liberty vs. power” paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the Congressional G.O.P. rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge.
The missing piece, as a wise man has remarked to me already today, is that an at least nominal commitment to rolling back the state is required by the GOP's real-life commitment to tax cuts. Obviously, as we've seen, you can slash taxes without actually cutting spending. But if you want to cut taxes you do at least need to say that the plan is to roll back the state. Or, at a minimum, you can't engage in the sort of creative governance Brooks mentions here aimed at tackling "Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation" if the government isn't going to have any funds.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Look, I wish they had even a nominal commitment to rolling back the state, but I don't think that is necessary. People want their taxes lowered for one main reason: because they like money. I like money. I bet you like it too. This is a perfectly sufficient reason for tax cuts as a winning political promise. Only ideological libertarians care about the size of the state as such. This is, in fact, what "compassionate conservatism" means: it means, "fuck that libertarian shit! we'll continue the handouts, OK? so you won't vote us out for being meanies".
Posted by Leonard | March 29, 2007 9:50 AM