General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums(Crazy conservative) Douthat on the right's feeling of having its back against the wall here
Interesting take from crazy-land:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/
However heady the 1980s may have looked to everyone else, they were for conservatives a testing and disillusioning time. Conservatives owned the executive branch for eight years and had great influence over it for four more; they dominated the Senate for six years; and by the end of the decade they exercised near complete control over the federal judiciary. And yet, every time they reached to undo the work of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon the work they had damned for nearly half a century they felt the publics wary eyes upon them. They didnt dare, and they realized that they didnt dare. Their moment came and flickered. And as the power of the conservative movement slowly ebbed after 1986, and then roared away in 1992, the conservatives who had lived through that attack of faintheartedness shamefacedly felt that they had better hurry up and find something else to talk about
What this passage gets at is the deep, abiding gulf between the widespread conservative idea of what a true Conservative Moment would look like and the mainstream idea of the same. For the American mainstream moderate and apolitical as well as liberal the Reagan era really was a kind of conservative answer to the New Deal era: A period when the rights ideas were ascendant, its constituencies empowered, its favored policies pursued. But to many on the right, for the reasons the Frum of Dead Right suggested, it was something much more limited and fragmented and incomplete: A period when their side held power, yes, but one in which the framework and assumptions of politics remained essentially left-of-center, because the administrative state was curbed but barely rolled back, and the institutions and programs of New Deal and Great Society liberalism endured more or less intact.
This divide, I think, explains a lot of the mutual incomprehension surrounding size-of-government debates. To liberals and many moderates, it often seems like the right gets what it wants in these arguments and then just gets more extreme, demanding cuts atop cuts, concessions atop concessions, deregulation upon deregulation, tax cuts upon tax cuts. But to many conservatives, the right has never come remotely close to getting what it actually wants, whether in the Reagan era or the Gingrich years or now the age of the Tea Party because what it wants is an actually smaller government, as opposed to one that just grows somewhat more slowly than liberals and the left would like. And this goal only ends up getting labeled as extreme in our debates, conservatives lament, because the right has never succeeded in dislodging certain basic assumptions about government established by F.D.R. and L.B.J. under which a slower rate of spending growth is a draconian cut, an era of small government is one which in which the state grows immensely in absolute terms but holds steady as a share of G.D.P., and a rich society can never get rich enough to need less welfare spending per capita than it did when it was considerably poorer.
Make7
(8,543 posts)... but somehow, even though that's what they really want, government spending seems to grow whenever they have the White House.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The howls from segments of DU about Obama are nothing compared to the howls throughout the conservative blogosphere during Bush's terms.
Make7
(8,543 posts)... that are never achieved (or apparently even attempted) when actually wielding power.
He's romanticizing an idea of smaller government that doesn't, in reality, seem to be what the right ring wants since they don't do anything about it when they are actually in a position to do so. They similarly seem very, very concerned about deficits when Democrats hold the White House, yet when their side holds that office the deficits seem to increase.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of believing the publicly stated goals of many groups are the same as their actual goals. Actions speak louder than words. If they want a smaller government then reduce it's size when you have the ability to do so (or at least attempt it). If deficit spending is worrisome to them, curb spending (or try to) when you hold the purse strings.
It's like many of these Republicans taking to the airwaves to proclaim they don't want to shut the government down - obviously they do want to shut the government down since they could have very easily not done so. To pretend that this shutdown is born of frustration over some lofty goal such as smaller government is disingenuous at best.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Which is why they hate their political leaders so much
(If you read the full thing, you'll notice he also thinks the Tea Party is being idiotic.)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)which means less spending on unemployed people. And defense spending, of course - the form of spending Republicans are eager to increase.