In the short run, of course, liberals will do our work for us.  As the Republicans consolidate power, The New York Times readers will find themselves on the outside looking in and will radically change their ideas about political power and limited government.  We saw Democratic enthusiasm for independent counsels suddenly evaporate when the independent counsel law written in the Watergate era to claw at Republican presidents was used to harass Bill Clinton, a Democrat.  We saw the expressions of outrage in 2003 when Republicans in Colorado and Texas rammed through legislative redistricting to replace egregious Democratic gerrymanders with equally egregious Republican gerrymanders.   In the years to come we can expect the editorial pages of The New York Times to discover the eternal virtues of non-partisan redistricting, especially if the political outlook offers the prospect of Tom DeLays for the foreseeable future. 

In the political public square we can expect that Democratic policy analysts will write very different books when they come to fear that the old order of high-minded liberalism is in process of being replaced by a conservative insurgency of former pest exterminators.  They will sing a different tune when they realize that they must live in America under a pharaoh that knew not FDR.  If the United States Senate could defeat filibusters on conservative appeals court judges, if the House of Representatives started churning out a major entitlement reform every session, if the Supreme Court’s reliable liberals were reduced from four to three and the court handed down a couple of landmark pro- conservative decisions we could expect the liberal elites to discover the virtues of limited government in the legislatures and strict constructionism in the courts.  And that is all we want of them.

The new fear of government will help us in our goal to reduce the monopoly power of the welfare state.  The beneficiaries of every government program are organized into “iron triangles” of beneficiaries, advocates, and politicians that support each other in promoting their special interest against the general interest.  They advance their agenda in campaigns that blend emotional appeals to the public with financial support to the politicians that vote appropriations for the clients and salaries and pensions for the bureaucrats.  The recipients of government spending, the clients and the providers, organize to elect and direct politicians to support their agendas.   In military terms, what these special interest groups do is build and occupy fortified political space.  Only a determined attacker can expect to dislodge them.

In this case, two strategies immediately suggest themselves.  In many cases, it may suffice to frighten the defenders into capitulation.  Ronald Reagan, exploiting his reputation as a mad bomber, used shows of force at least three times to frighten his adversaries.  He used it in the air-traffic controllers’ strike of 2001.  By firing a few strikers, he frightened millions into respectful obedience.  His Grenada invasion and his Strategic Defense Initiative were two brilliant feints that cost almost nothing, but persuaded the Soviets that it was useless to resist U.S. power.  A careful riffing of a few programs, or firings of imprudent government strikers might do wonders to keep the smoldering rage of the welfare state partisans from bursting into flame.

In the campaign against the education monopoly, the slow advance of education choice can be sped along with an occasional turning movement.  It is likely that the National Education Association can be caught in occasional illegality and its supporters demoralized by legal action.  In Washington State, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation keeps a constant fusillade of small-arms fire upon the Washington Education Association, suing it for using members’ contributions for illegal political activity.  At some high point in the school-choice battle, it wouldn’t hurt to have the top officers of the National Education Association doing a perp walk.  

A similar strategy is likely to work on the government programs for child protection.  In recent years, there have been a number of scandals: the mess of the child welfare system in New Jersey, the day-care center witch trials.  One fine day, ambitious young lawyers may figure out that they way to run for District Attorney is by digging up horror stories in the government’s child welfare system and calling for root-and-branch reform.

To reduce the support for the tribal welfare state it is essential to privatize as many monopoly service providers as possible.  We want Americans to experience agricultural rent-seekers as evil agribusinesses instead of family farmers, educational rent-seekers as evil Big Education instead of “our” teachers, energy rent-seekers as evil power companies instead of “our” City Light, and fire-protection rent-seekers as evil fire companies instead of “our” firefighters, just as they happily rail today at Big Oil, Big Drug, and Big Tobacco with the enthusiastic encouragement of Democratic politicians and activists.

The dynamic of political power makes it very difficult to sustain a philosophy of government limited both in resources and in power.  The challenge for conservatives and all believers in limited government is how to play the game of political power when you do not have a regiment recruited from your iron triangle to garrison your city on a hill.  We do not want the matrix of society to be driven by the dynamic of detect a problem, frame an indictment, legislate a government program, and suck for evermore on the government teat.  We do not want to set up the incestuous relationship of special interest activists, pensioned bureaucrats, and dependent clients that are so addicted to their tax-financed benefits that they lose all shame in defense of their golden hoard.  Therefore we must invent another political dynamic, which enables us to occupy political space without creating a self-perpetuating special interest monopoly.  How could this be done?  What models are available in the world to guide us in the development of a sustainable political model that defends the rule of law, that extends the reach of personal responsibility, that resumes the movement from status to contract, and that includes the gentle rain of compassion to soften the sharp edges of responsibility and contract.  Chances are there are models out there, staring at us in the face, ready to be taken up and adapted for use in national politics.  We want strategies that frighten rent-seekers into reducing their demands for rent; we do not want the shirts off their backs.

| <<prev | 1 | 2 | (3) | 4 | next>> |

print view

Click for Chapter 15: The Worldwide Explosion of Pentecostalism

Your comments are welcome. Please e-mail to Christopher Chantrill at mailto:chrischantrill@gmail.com, and take the RMC test here.

©2005 Christopher Chantrill