Farah entitles his piece "the greatest political opportunity of a lifetime". Already I have to quibble; if there was a time the GOP had an opportunity to promote constitutionally limited government it was in 2003-2006 when the GOP controlled both the Congress and the White House; you have to go back to the 50's or 20's to find a decent setup or at least a GOP-controlled Congress after Clinton's first mid-term. The GOP controls only the House and only by a net swing of about 18 seats. There are enough seats in play that make it hardly likely to make Congressmen on the bubble take an ideological stand, tailor-made for their next general election opponent to run against "an extremist". You see candidates like Scott Brown and Gomez of Massachusetts arguing that they are "independent" candidates who vote for the interests of their states/districts over party bosses.
It is true, of course, that the House GOP cannot be forced to pass a bloated budget, raise the debt limit or vote for a single new regulation or tax. But the President has the use of a veto and more than enough House Democrats to sustain it, not to mention the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Moreover, Obama and the Democrats essentially own the bully pulpit and the economically illiterate mainstream media; it's a much easier lift explaining why the government gave Oliver Twist a second serving of porridge than to be the heartless, austere headmaster denying a hungry child. Just look at the demagoguery over sequestration cuts; we are borrowing nearly 40 cents on the dollar but the Dems argue even trimming 2 cents on the dollar are enough to trigger the economy into recession. It's just too hard to explain to voters why you denied Oliver Twist a second helping of porridge; most voters will see Oliver as one of their own, except for the grace of God.
I have no problems being for constitutionally limited government. Look at my opinions over hundreds of posts: I've talked about things like reducing the number of Cabinet posts to a half-dozen, which is even more radical than Rand Paul's plan to eliminate 4, radical reforms to entitlements, pensions, privatization, etc. Here are some of the problems:
- People are vested in government goodies. Take, for instance, the senior entitlements of social security and Medicare. Most current workers have paid into these systems all their work history. Unfortunately, their mandated contributions have not been vested in real assets, like investing in blue-chip dividend-yielding stocks; instead, their payments have gone first to paying off existing beneficiaries while the ratio of workers to beneficiaries has shrunk from around 16 to 3, and the rest, if any to reserves by law which must be invested in Treasury IOU's; since 2010, worker contributions are at a net deficit in pay-as-you-go, and Treasury notes are paying a negative real interest rate (i.e., below inflation, that is, our principals are melting). With shrinking birthrates for future workers, this is not sustainable. And that is without taking into account longer retirement lifespans and ever more expensive end-of-life medical care. The problem is that the government has not been setting up properly funded reserves so future generations will need to bail out obligations to seniors. The "big lie" is that seniors paid for their benefits; that's false. They've paid towards these programs, but the government hasn't properly funded them. Accounting problems are largely lost on citizens whom will likely only push back when they see contributions go up or benefits go down.
- Where do you draw the line? At limited government? This is similar to the Laffer curve on taxation. With no taxes you get no revenue; at 100%, you have no take-home--and no incentive to maximize income. For instance, I may argue enough national defense to offset an explicit threat to the US; others may extend that to allies around the world.
- Resistance to change. Uncertainty... What if I lose my job in this economy? Will these cuts come back to haunt me? What happens to my retirement? What if the cuts don't stop there, but happen to spending I support, say, border protection or prisons holding violent offenders?
- Consistency is a problem. Many conservatives justifiably want to prune down morally hazardous social welfare programs, Food Stamp Nation. But, for instance, Rick Santorum supported Bush's steel tariff and certain union protections, red states zealously protect farm subsidies, military conservatives reject mothballing even one aircraft carrier, and it was a GOP President and Congress which radically expanded domestic spending, particularly education, and building the DHS super-bureaucracy, initiated two unpaid-for foreign invasions/nation building and expanded Medicare with an unpaid-for prescription drug benefit in the early 2000's. It was also the GOP that pushed the Patriot Act and the e-verify system. How many conservatives are willing to reform the military pension system so it becomes old-age supplementary income versus a guaranteed government payout for life starting in one's late 30's or early 40's in mid-career?
- It's difficult to run against Santa Claus. Santa Claus makes good deeds fungible; he doesn't teach virtuous behavior is self-rewarding. "Somebody else" pays for all the labor, materials and overhead in his toy shop. People don't like to be lectured to by their physicians they need to diet and exercise, cut out smoking and other self-defeating behavior. Nobody wants to pay more for government or accept fewer benefits. It's not THEIR Congressman or Senator whom is part of the problem; he or she is only getting their "fair share".
As for Farah's "final test for the GOP" before moving on to a new "liberty party" like Sarah Palin and others have suggested, first of all, the GOP has blown 2 straight elections to recapture the Senate by nominating fringe candidates in Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana and elsewhere. You have to nominate viable candidates, and even liberal GOP Senators are typically fiscal conservatives. Some liberty candidates have won elective office, e.g., Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ron Johnson, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake--but the idea that one is going to change a century of expanding federal government overnight is an unrealistic expectation.
Can and will government enact radical steps on their own? Yes; take a look at California cities which have headed into bankruptcy. Sometimes they have had to resort to deep personnel cuts, even to public safety officers, as the public pension crisis deepens. I personally believe the day of reckoning is approaching; I don't know the specifics, e.g., a crisis in the dollar, a generational backlash against the Baby Boomers, a global recession/depression, state bankruptcies, etc., but I suspect only when it becomes clear that politicians have no real choice and can no longer kick the can down the road that voters will demand true change and mutual sacrifice.
