Swallowed By Leviathan: Conservatism versus an oxymoron: 'big- government conservatism'

National Review, Sept 29, 2003 by Ramesh Ponnuru

It's important to note that this small-government strategy does not amount to going along with any government program that makes Republicans more popular. An editorial in the Washington Times recently argued that a new prescription-drug entitlement would be worth the cost, because it would get more Republicans elected . . . and in a few years they would reform entitlements. But even if the Republicans were to get 60 senators in this fashion -- a big if -- a party that had thus gained power would be likely to find itself bereft of its reformist zeal. For partisans of small government, the goal should be to strengthen the coalition for conservative governance more than to strengthen the Republican party.

Liberals have been following their own version of this strategy for many years. Since the collapse of the Clintons' health-care plan in 1994, for example, they have sought incremental reforms that would make people more receptive to government-provided health care. Both parties are aware that they are fighting a kind of trench warfare, contesting small territories in bitter engagements in the hope of winning a better position for tomorrow's battles.

When they judge how well the president has served them, conservatives ought to ask whether he is advancing the cause of limited government given the political circumstances. Surprisingly often, the criticism of Bush ignores those circumstances. In the intra-conservative debate about Bush, it is assumed that to approve of Bush's performance is also to approve of the big government he has expanded, and that to oppose big government one must also condemn Bush. But the attitude conservatives should have toward Bush does not follow straightforwardly from the attitude they should have toward excessive government, because political considerations have to be taken into account.

The president's conservative critics sometimes make it sound as though the idea for a prescription-drug entitlement sprang from his (or Karl Rove's) head. But it's not Bush's fault that voters, including self- described conservatives, like the promise of free medicine. The entire Republican party, from top to bottom, concluded in 1999 that it would be politically perilous to stand against the idea. That doesn't mean that the president's behavior in this matter is above reproach -- it would be nice if he would demand that the bill contain real free-market reforms, not just that it be bipartisan -- but criticism should be based on actually available alternatives. Similarly, people talk as though the president set federal spending levels all by his lonesome. Bush has indeed made decisions worth criticizing: He could, for instance, have vetoed the farm-subsidy bill. But where's the criticism of the congressional spenders, Republican and Democrat (all too) alike? More to the point, where's the effort to reform a budget process that is designed to pump up the government?

When judged in this manner, some of Bush's compromises will appear to be reasonable, some to be gratuitous sellouts. Still others will take time to judge. The steel tariffs were probably necessary to get Congress to give the president the authority to negotiate free-trade deals; we won't know if it was worth it until some time in Bush's next term (assuming he has one). In some cases, conservatives may decide that Bush made the right call given the political circumstances but that they should denounce him anyway, as part of their effort to change those circumstances. The steel tariffs may fall in this category, too.