May 25, 2006 

Penn Patriot

 Brown Shoes Diary 

On Girly-Conservatism

Ronald Reagan famously said that he never left the Democratic Party, but rather, it left him. I feel that way about the modern Conservative movement.

Time was that conservatives favored keeping strict limits on foreign involvements by our government and especially that of the military. Such a policy hearkens back to George Washington who warned in his Farewell Address about foreign entanglements. Today, however, conservatives are hot for expanding America's political and military presence across the globe.

Time was conservatives thought government was a poor delivery device for education. At most, they thought government involvement in education should be confined to the local level. No longer. Conservatives and conservative impostors (George W. Bush) have dramatically expanded government involvement in education at the state and national levels.

Time was conservatives favored shrinking government. They still talk that way, but peddle earmarks worse than any liberal. And they come up with spending plans such as the "flexible freeze" of George H. W. Bush (we won't even begin to talk about the disastrous spending habits of George II) or tax and expenditure limitation (TEL) plans at the state level. All of these plans explicitly provide for continued GROWTH of government.

Why the move to the left by today's so-called conservatives? My guess is it's a lack of testosterone. They're too interested in being pragmatic and getting along because they think the endgame is about getting elected and looking pretty. They are wrong. The left has been losing elections for decades and yet their agenda inexorably advances thanks to the pragmatism of girly-conservatives.

Manly conservatives (Margaret Thatcher comes to mind) understand that there is more to be won by espousing an uncompromising philosophy of liberty and traditional values than in doing the politic thing. Barry Goldwater understood that too. (Reading tip: The Conscience of a Conservative.) Ronald Reagan, perhaps better than all, understood the difference between political compromise and philosophical principle. Reagan was a skilled negotiator who knew how to compromise to advance an agenda, but he never publicly yielded the high ground or high principle. I wish the conservatives in Pennsylvania's state government would learn that.

When the conservatives of our state advocate growing government at some set rate, as they do in the Promise to Pennsylvania, they have publicly abandoned their most important principle. They'll claim that it's expedient to do so, but it's hard to see how. How is it expedient to go into a negotiation hoping to get $10 an hour by offering to work for $8? That is, in effect, what they're doing with the so-called Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

Now, I've been accused of not dealing with reality, but let's look at the reality of Harrisburg for a minute. Unless he becomes president of the U.S. in 2008, Ed Rendell is going to be our governor for the next 5 years. (Pretty scary scenario, eh? Rendell wins the presidency in 2008 and Catherine Baker Knoll becomes our governor. Yikes!) As long as he is governor, Rendell will most certainly veto any bill that limits the growth of government in any way. (Reality check: Fast Eddie LOVES government and there is no way he is going to accept any limits on it whatsoever.) And even if the Republican party holds the majority in both houses of the General Assembly (a very big "if"), it will not be strong enough conservatively to override the Governor's vetoes. So, if reality and practicality are your stock-in-trade, then TABOR is a non-starter.

I would suggest instead that true conservatives actually propose to cut government rather than growing it. What's wrong with a statement that government is overgrown and taxpayers overburdened? Why not a plan to actually shrink government if that is your belief? What is there to lose by adhering to a moral position? I'll tell you what there is to gain--a lot more people are going to take you seriously in the long-term if you match rhetoric and action to the principle of more freedom and smaller government. And such a position exposes the promoters of bigger government and the defenders of the status quo as the socialists they are.

On the other hand, those calling themselves conservatives can say they're willing to compromise their principles and aims to go along and get along in Fast Eddie's town. Good luck to them, but all of them ought to be wearing dresses.

The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else.  He can be contacted at zoiprof@atlanticbb.net.

Contact John D McGinnis

Back to Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary