Eidelbus and the Problem with Republicans

Our friend Perry Eidelbus on government and the Republican Party:

I’ve been meaning to write an entry about this for a while. The Republican Party was just a reincarnation of the Whigs, who were big-government types that believed in “internal improvements” and tariffs. Thus Republicans have always been about big government from the Thomas DiLorenzo has pointed out, was “The Great Centralizer” in how he expanded federal powers during a time of war — just like today. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, Herbert Hoover tried proto-Keynesian attempts to stimulate the economy, Nixon was a self-professed Keynesian, and then there’s GWB. He has more than disappointed me because I still support him about Iraq, and I applaud his 2001 tax cuts as having come at the perfect time (keeping the recession from getting worse). But he’s just a big government believer who is loyal to his party — he’s “conservative” when it helps the GOP, and he’s an LBJ-class spender when it helps the GOP. If anyone had doubts, Katrina’s aftermath proved that he doesn’t think twice about new big government programs.

There is more. Make sure you read the whole thing.

I have to say that I agree with his assessment. When I am asked whether I am a Republican, I answer “sometimes”. Since Clinton left office, the Republicans in the House and the Senate have lost their way. The only reason that they have continued to have support is that they were the lesser of two evils.

I pointed to the post by Kos yesterday about libertarian Dems and many readers dismissed his writing as empty rhetoric. However, that rhetoric will win the Democrats elections and may even attract my vote. The Republicans have long claimed to be the party of limited government and lower taxes. The former is no longer.

Never did I expect to see a Democratic president pass welfare reform and a Republican president expand Medicare.

If either party wants to win, they are going to have to appeal to the large block of voters who favor individual liberty, less government, and lower taxes. Nancy Pelosi seems to understand at least part of this — whether it is just empty rhetoric can be debated. The Wall Street Journal reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pledged that if Democrats succeed next year in rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the money would be used to reduce the federal deficit — not for new spending.

Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-state projects, a practice she calls a “monster” that hurts Congress.

The argument of whether or not this is empty rhetoric is futile. The past six years — other than the tax cuts — have been filled with empty rhetoric from congressional Republicans.

The agenda is simple. I will lay it out for you:

• Stop earmarks.
• Reduce spending.
• Fix Medicare before it goes bankrupt.
• Ditto for Social Security.
• Stop building bridges to nowhere.
• Spend less time on flag burning and more time on that which is listed above.
• Realize that opposition to gay marriage will not win you every election for the next decade. That was the issue of 2004. It is time to run on something of substance.

I think that we are in for a major reallignment within the parties. Hopefully one of the two will emerge professing limited government. A man can dream, can’t he?