The Oldness of Liberal’s “New” Ideas

At long last the suspense has broken. The White House has laid bare their bold new plan to re-animate our economy, and it is . . . income redistribution; government as the consumer of last resort. That is to say, the last consumer without enough common sense to quit spending money, our money, when all the money is gone.

I don’t begrudge any politician their view of the world. What is unsettling is the apparent need to call it something it’s not in order to make it appealing. The Gibbs-Axelrod-Wasserman axis of evil are wearing themselves out talking about how the Republicans offer no new ideas and for some reason the Republicans reflexively deny this and insist that in fact they are offering “new” ideas as well.

Not True. There are no “new” ideas. There are about two idea ideas and both of them are old.

There is on the one hand the idea that government should take an active role in doing for the people. In order to do, the government which has nothing, must take, from someone who has. The founders understood well the self-corrupting nature of government and they feared the self-sustaining momentum of an indulgent, activist government. The feared a numbed populace growing more impatient and infatuated with bread and circuses and an intellectual class willing to feed them to maintain power. The logic of activist government plays seductively on our fears and our desire for comfort and security of the kind life doesn’t really offer. Ultimately this logic ends with the state having everything and the people having nothing.

On the other hand, there is the idea of a limited government with a short list of enumerated powers. A government responsible to do only those things which in fact the people can not do for themselves such as field a standing army capable of securing our borders. This idea, so appealing to those who had lived under oppression, is more challenging. Limited government leaves apparent loose ends. A natural disparity of results emerges from the infinite range of human desire and capacity. Self-determination sometimes bears fruit that is hard to see. While citizens are free to pursue happiness they are also free to follow a course which inevitably brings unhappiness.

This ideal of limited government has become so hazy among establishment Republicans that people who still believe in these principles now call themselves after a riot that took place in 1773 . . . not new.

This is the real debate. Where is the line? How much should government do to ensure that citizens are not only safe but warm, full, comfortable and entertained. Spending half a trillion dollars on painting schools and building roads . . . not new. Cutting taxes and gutting bloated, oppressive regulation . . . not new.

Our national dialogue will be more productive if all the actors will be less pretentious and we as citizens and consumers of government will demand honesty and clarity.