Whatever Happened to Limited Government?
View Comments | Print This Post Print This Post |

by Justin Darr | April 19th, 2006

Over the last six years our Republican-controlled government has produced the highest levels of government spending in history, soaring deficits, and excessive government regulation that intrudes even further into the lives of regular Americans.

For some reason, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering why their poll numbers are crashing, their public support waning, and the fact they might lose seats in Congress during the mid-term elections.

Well, here is a reason or two why; over the last six years our Republican-controlled government has produced the highest levels of government spending in history, soaring deficits, excessive government regulation that intrudes even further into the lives of regular Americans, the belief that the best way to solve the problems of a massive, government bureaucracy is to make it even larger, and the systematic replacement of the promises made to the Conservative base with lip service. 

It might seem like a long time ago, but once, the Republicans were the party of limited government.  A party that believed the best way to govern Americans was to let them govern themselves, make their own choices, and decide on their own what was right and wrong, rather than relying on some faceless bureaucrats.  A party so bold as to make a “Contract with America” that challenged the voters to take them at their word, and if they did not live up to it, then elect them out of office.

Those days are just a dim memory today, because the Republican Party has fallen in love with big government. 

Republicans have forgotten the obvious.  The only thing government is good at doing is spending money and screwing up.  And, for the past several years, Republicans have placed their faith in the ability of government agencies and legislation to solve our nation’s problems rather than common sense and personal responsibility.

In the wake of September 11th, when our nation faced the new challenge of protecting itself at home from foreign enemies, the obvious solution to the problem was the mobilization of the American people to assist in their own defense.  Our government should have urged us to be vigilant.  Stay alert for suspicious activities and report them to the authorities for investigation, cooperate with law enforcement, and show solidarity for the war effort with our friends and neighbors.

However, this common sense approach to Homeland Security was, evidently, not quite politically correct enough for the Republicans.  After all, simply acknowledging the fact that every one of the 9/11 terrorists was a young Muslim male of Mid-Eastern descent is now considered hate speech.  Taking the next logical step and saying, “If there is ever another 9/11 type attack in America, its perpetrators will almost definitely come from the exact same demographic,” will get you branded with the Scarlet “I” of “intolerance” faster than you can say G.O.P. 

Instead, our government chose to grant Islam “Most Favored Peaceful Religion Status,” spend billions of dollars on the Department of Homeland Security and federalize airport security. 

Do not let all those people killed and embassies burned because Mohammad was portrayed in a cartoon, or the fact that almost every instance of international terrorism over the past five years has been committed by Muslims fool you.  Islam is a religion of peace and the best way to combat the subversive elements that seek to distort it is to harass business travelers with an extra carry-on bag, and a color coded threat assessment scale that would stay on yellow if the world was cracking in two.

Who knows, maybe the next Mohammad Atta will be Grandma Maynard with her walker.  More than likely, this is not the case, and all the time, money, and resources spent so far on upgrading domestic security, with the exclusion of actively profiling likely terrorists, has made the entire endeavor a waste of time.   But wasting time, money, and resources is what government is good at, so I guess in a perverted sort of way, we have got both our money’s worth, and what we asked for. 

The sad truth is the Republicans should have known better.  The very fact that they chose this path is indicative of just how far they have moved away from their Conservative base.

Whether it is Republicans proposing nothing but expanding Federal authority and spending to solve the illegal immigration issue, or trying to address the failures of Hurricane Katrina by making the federal bureaucracy even bigger by adding F.E.M.A. into the Department of Homeland Security, more and more the Republicans are looking like the Democrats they ousted from power over a decade ago.  And, if the Republicans continue to act like the Democrats of the past, they will share their fate.

Labels: Politics: General

justin@justindarr.com
Visit their website at: http://www.justindarr.com/

Read more articles by Justin Darr on IntellectualConservative.com

 

 

Responses to "Whatever Happened to Limited Government?"

  1. Good Post.  I agree that the GOP has lost touch with its base.  I firmly believe if a Dem was in the White House we would have less spending than we do today.  Let me repeat that, I believe a Dem would spend less money than GWB has approved.  How humiliating.  The reason would not be the desire of a Dem to spend less, its just this rubber-stamp form of government restraint would be prevented.  An argument, discussion, and debate would be involved in spending issues because Republicans know that demonizing the spending habits of Dems is a winner. The Dem would bring forth the ridiculous pork which Congress passed without a hiccup from GW.  The Dem would use it as ammo if not blackmail to get what he/she wanted.  Spending used to be a defining difference in the parties. That issue is what ol GWB loves to say "off the table."  I will never forget how GW systematically took Dem issues and made him his own, like the Teddy Kennedy Educational Bill, or the massive Medicare Drug Benefit.  He proudly exalted how he has taken these issues from Dems leaving them no agenda.  As will be proven in November, the Dems will not have an agenda and will win the election not on what they have to offer, but on how GWB and the corrupt congress betrayed the principles which define conservatism.  His arrogant attempt to grab the middle of the road voter needs to be done on principle, not bribery, whcih is what he is offering.  He has destroyed the confindence of the Reagan Democrats and set the fiscal concerns of this party on a one way path to destruction.  I for one need a party of Conservatism to believe in.   If the GOP is nothing more than Liberal Light, I will not waste my time supporting this once proud party. Is this what happened to France?

    Comment by honker | April 19, 2006

  2. I have seen increasing calls for "limited government." This is a good thing, but I wonder if the language of "limited government" might not be part of the problem. "Limited" to what? "Limited" by what? Limited to 2 trillion a year? Limited to x% of the GDP? Limited to increasing no more than the rate of inflation? etc. The only legitimate limit on the federal government and federal governement spending is what spending is authorized by the Constitution. And those limits are routinely ignored and have been almost since the beginning. If we were only spending on things authorized by the Constitution, 80-90% of the governemnet would disappear over night. (A good guess.) Name a program, any government program, and chances are it is not authorized by the Constitution. It is true that the GOP is losing touch with its base on spending and that may cost them because elections are often decided by who turns out their base. But they have not lost touch with most of the voters who are perfectly happy with unconstitutional spending that benefits them. The fact is that cutting spending is hard and lavishing money is easy. After all these years the promise of something for nothing still sells with fallen man. If the GOP suffers significant loses this year, it will be because the base is unhappy about spending, but also because the middle is unhappy with the war. Conservatives need to comes to grips with the fact that following the limits placed on the governement by the Constitution is not a negotiable position. Real conservatives can not "come to terms" with big governement or embrace the "New Deal" and "Great Society" and all the other unconstitutional spending. (The only Republican who understands this that I know of is Ron Paul.) Since the masses like their spending programs, a call to radically downsize governement to its Constitutional size is not an election winner. But is is the only position that can legitimately claim to be conservative. 

    Comment by Red Phillips | April 19, 2006

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.