Republicans for "Big" Government?
Maybe not, but some of the claims seem to suggest it.
My view of politics sees governments as tool chest of possibilities used by individuals, groups (profit and nonprofit), and majorities of citizens (in elections) to advance their interests. Good tools in the wrong hands? Problem. Very dangerous (strong?) tools in the right hands? Problem. Weak tools in the ordinary person’s hands? Ineffectiveness.
So, I join the millions in this country that want governments to be strong and flexible. and help with the problems that their tools can touch. And I care about who controls (which individuals and groups) these tools. I want them to be competent and share my core values, and I expect fairness in the creation and administration of law, and its equal application to all of us.
But do I think that governments will solve all our problems or wreck all our future happiness? Of course not! Although that is what candidates for President often say.
When a new government comes to power all the old policies are in place and most can only be adjusted over time, if at all. They are inforced and reinforced by habit, experience, expertise and trust. Societies are great ships moving forward in uncharted waters and stormy seas. New Captains aren’t simply piped on board, shout out orders and change everything “the first day.”
In fact, the results of the first year or so of a different political party in the White House, is largely a reflection of the last Administration. It takes time for policies to show results, and new policies never change things as much or as fast as their supporters hope.
Looked at that way the Biden policies are just starting to take hold. He inherited the covid fallout and whatever changes Trump made that had any long-term effect on the economy. And can we actually separate whatever success the Trump administration had with the economy before Covid hit, with the former policies of the Obama administration?
And now both candidates are speaking as if they believe in almost miraculous powers of government and in their ability to wield them. That may not surprise many that see Democratics as “pro-government.” But what are we to make of the Republican candidate saying he would be so powerful and his actions so sweeping that he’ll fix things for a generation. And, also, saying that four years of the present administration is responsible for a pile of calamities.
Now, he may be saying that the Democrats used government in “big” ways and that caused all the problems, and that he would shut down the government to such an extent that private business will be freed up to usher in a promised land. But, while that may be a position taken by some Republicans (though not so extreme), and it may reflect some of the promises of the 2025 Report, it doesn’t seem to be the agenda of the former President or the general thrust of the 2025 Report.
So now are both parties for strong government? Perhaps they are, and perhaps that means they believe only strong action by the government will manage 21st century problems.
Or should we be asking a deeper question. Can governments structured by Constitutions like that of the United States ever be powerful enough to deal effectively with these challenges? Are we asking too much of all our institutions at this moment of time? Friedman in a column in today’s New York Times (9/18/24) makes a persuasive comparison of the world faced in the past by the like of Kissinger and Nixon and today’s world.
“The job of running U.S. foreign policy is far, far harder than most Americans have ever spent time considering. It’s a near-impossibility in an age when you have to manage superpowers, supercorporations, superempowered individuals and networks, superstorms, superfailing states and superintelligence — all intermingling with one another, creating an incredibly complex web of problems to untangle to get anything done.”
And the domestic problems that we face are every bit as complex and unyielding. Is a stronger government the answer? At what cost? For whose benefit? Or do we cease demanding impossible results from all our institutions?
And thus lose, many of the opportunities that our level of technological skill and moral sensibility suggests are possible.
It seems to me that Vance and his relationship with Patrick Deneen presents us with an anti individual freedom philosophy of government intrusion. Vance even calls himself "postliberal right". Seems to be running under the radar for most of us.