Conservatism and Reduced Government

[cybercoma]

I read an article earlier today that was filled with leftist hyperbole, so I'm not going to bother linking to it. You know it's bad when even I'm criticizing something that favours my partisan slant. Nevertheless, beneath the layers of hyperbole, there was a very valid look at the shift that the Conservatives have taken since they were the Progressive Conservatives.

The author noted that Canada's current iteration of the Conservatives does share an ideological goal of the Republican Party in the US: reduce government. Casting aside arguments about whether they actually stand for that or whether they have even come close to accomplishing that, let's agree that reducing the government is one of the primary goals of the New Conservatives. The author points to a quote by Grover Norquist who worked under George W. Bush: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Comedic notes aside, this thinking is worth looking at.

I don't think Mr. Norquist stands alone in this sentiment. Many conservatives here in Canada also seem to share this thinking. If we can just get rid of government, things will flourish. This is where the author of the aforementioned article says that what takes the place of government when it is lying dead and bloated in that bathtub is corporations. He falls down the hyperbole rabbit hole claiming that the Harper Conservatives are corporatists, which is another way of saying fascists.

However, let us cast aside the loaded labels, charged rhetoric, and useless hyperbole that obfuscates the important point that this article brings up. If the goal is to reduce as much of the government as possible, what then? We can see that the current Harper Conservatives are moving in that direction. Reducing and sometimes eliminating environmental regulations and safeguards is being lauded by conservatives in this country as a commendable way to bring "jobs, growth, and prosperity" to Canadians. I don't think I'm painting Harper and the CPC unfairly when I say that their goal is to reduce government.

So let's discuss the end game. What is the result of this? Do corporations then take over the role of government for society? Will we all live in a society that flourishes and thrives because barriers to corporate growth and prosperity will have been eliminated? Is this even the end game at all? Thoughts? Opinions?

[Topaz]

Corporation take over government? I think been happening since Bush sr and Mulroney started down the road to free trade. Both, have been working together to reduce laws, like the auto pact in Canada, which opened the door for all manufacturing to leave and go to the US, then to Mexico and the Third World countries. The next step I see, is to get rid of unions in North America and so when these corporation want to come back to North America, there will be low wages, little or no benefits and lot of unpaid over time. If every country is tied to another country with free trade, then there will probably be one legal tender to make things easier to trade or leading to a new world order as Bush sr. had talked about. The one problem to this could be is a certain leader not wanting to get in bed with the corporation.

[cybercoma]

Would it be democratic if we were represented by our "trade guilds" as it were, iow, the corporations or organizations that we're employed with? The government is moving back more and more towards treating the unemployed, disabled, etc. as scum. Just build more prisons for them. Take them out of the equation. Why not have your trade organization represent you instead of an MP?

[GostHacked]

Reducing departments like Oceans and Fisheries I don't think is reducing government in the way that reducing government needs to take place. It's those guys up on Parliament Hill that need a thinning out. Or at least their wages/expenses neutered.

Real cuts can be made. Cuts to entities like Oceans and Fisheries would only satisfy the idiots who think that this kind of government reduction will result in positives later on.

Regulatory arms of the government for corporations are needed. We are supposed to be so concerned about the future and sustainability, why would we eliminate entities that do just that?

Maybe we should look at the departments that have grown since these Progressive Conservatives got in power. Things like the C-30 Security bill would create more government jobs to monitor and analyze the information gathered through eavesdropping methods. The cost of acquiring the technology is also very costly.

I think these cuts are more symbolic than anything. Just to say that Harper and Co. have reduced government (in one area), only to (and I would put money on this) to increase government in another area.

[carepov]

Conservatives and Republicans have this in common: they have successfully branded themselves with the image of cutting government - while in fact they have grown expenditures to record highs. The goal is not to actually reduce government but make it look like they are so that they win elections.

It may just be symbolic, but come on Conservatives: look at the size of our Cabinet, increasing the number of seats in the House, lack of Senate reform. The best example in the US I can think of for bloating the government is the whole department of Homeland Security.

We should be looking at areas to cut government spending while improving services at the same time - business does this all the time. Similarity, if done right (a big if), we can streamline environmental regulations, make environmental reviews faster AND better protect the environment.

[Canuckistani]

Conservatives and Republicans have this in common: they have successfully branded themselves with the image of cutting government - while in fact they have grown expenditures to record highs. The goal is not to actually reduce government but make it look like they are so that they win elections.

It may just be symbolic, but come on Conservatives: look at the size of our Cabinet, increasing the number of seats in the House, lack of Senate reform. The best example in the US I can think of for bloating the government is the whole department of Homeland Security.

We should be looking at areas to cut government spending while improving services at the same time - business does this all the time. Similarity, if done right (a big if), we can streamline environmental regulations, make environmental reviews faster AND better protect the environment.

The game plan is to make government collapse under its own weight by reducing tax revenue but not spending. They're hoping that all the Joe the Plumbers out there will then support gutting the welfare state. They've been more successful in this in the US, there's still a lot of resistance to this in Canada. We'll see in the longer term whether the middle class here is going to drink the Kool-Ade and cause it's own demise. Certainly seems to be heading in that direction. Jim Jones had nothing on the neo-conservative movement.

[bush_cheney2004]

Conservatives and Republicans have this in common: they have successfully branded themselves with the image of cutting government - while in fact they have grown expenditures to record highs.

... The best example in the US I can think of for bloating the government is the whole department of Homeland Security.

Not sure what you mean by this....technically, the biggest U.S. spending relative to GDP occurred during WW2 (Roosevelt - Democrat), and federal employee and uniformed defense growth also spiked during the Johnson administration (Democrat). Even if you only mean the growth in U.S. federal deficits, the current president (a Democrat) has bested anything seen in previous Republican administrations.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-employment-president-political-party/

[carepov]

Not sure what you mean by this....technically, the biggest U.S. spending relative to GDP occurred during WW2 (Roosevelt - Democrat), and federal employee and uniformed defense growth also spiked during the Johnson administration (Democrat). Even if you only mean the growth in U.S. federal deficits, the current president (a Democrat) has bested anything seen in previous Republican administrations.

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-employment-president-political-party/

Thanks for the link - it is full of interesting info.

Regarding number of federal employees there are multiple sources and an infinite number of ways to spin the reports. I am not sure what happened under Johnson, I would put more emphasis on recent administrations and compare Clinton to Reagan, Bush and Bush.

It is true that spending/debt is at a record high under Obama. Reagan and the Bushes also set record highs. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png

Again, this can be spun left or right but my point is: Conservatives and Republicans talk the talk of reducing government but when was the last time they actually did?

[bush_cheney2004]

Regarding number of federal employees there are multiple sources and an infinite number of ways to spin the reports. I am not sure what happened under Johnson, I would put more emphasis on recent administrations and compare Clinton to Reagan, Bush and Bush.

Do as you please, but history has a much longer view than that. Clinton worked with a Republican House and "Contract with America".

Again, this can be spun left or right but my point is: Conservatives and Republicans talk the talk of reducing government but when was the last time they actually did?

PM Margaret Thatcher - 1980's

Edited June 25, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[TimG]

If the goal is to reduce as much of the government as possible, what then?

Conservatives know that if left alone government will constantly expand so it needs to regularly trimmed like a gardener prunes his azaleas. As with the azaleas, it really does not matter which branches are lopped off as long as the growth is curbed and the garden (the economy) is protected from a run away bush.

[dre]

I read an article earlier today that was filled with leftist hyperbole, so I'm not going to bother linking to it. You know it's bad when even I'm criticizing something that favours my partisan slant. Nevertheless, beneath the layers of hyperbole, there was a very valid look at the shift that the Conservatives have taken since they were the Progressive Conservatives.

The author noted that Canada's current iteration of the Conservatives does share an ideological goal of the Republican Party in the US: reduce government. Casting aside arguments about whether they actually stand for that or whether they have even come close to accomplishing that, let's agree that reducing the government is one of the primary goals of the New Conservatives. The author points to a quote by Grover Norquist who worked under George W. Bush: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Comedic notes aside, this thinking is worth looking at.

I don't think Mr. Norquist stands alone in this sentiment. Many conservatives here in Canada also seem to share this thinking. If we can just get rid of government, things will flourish. This is where the author of the aforementioned article says that what takes the place of government when it is lying dead and bloated in that bathtub is corporations. He falls down the hyperbole rabbit hole claiming that the Harper Conservatives are corporatists, which is another way of saying fascists.

However, let us cast aside the loaded labels, charged rhetoric, and useless hyperbole that obfuscates the important point that this article brings up. If the goal is to reduce as much of the government as possible, what then? We can see that the current Harper Conservatives are moving in that direction. Reducing and sometimes eliminating environmental regulations and safeguards is being lauded by conservatives in this country as a commendable way to bring "jobs, growth, and prosperity" to Canadians. I don't think I'm painting Harper and the CPC unfairly when I say that their goal is to reduce government.

So let's discuss the end game. What is the result of this? Do corporations then take over the role of government for society? Will we all live in a society that flourishes and thrives because barriers to corporate growth and prosperity will have been eliminated? Is this even the end game at all? Thoughts? Opinions?

let's agree that reducing the government is one of the primary goals of the New Conservatives

Sorry I reject your whole premise. Iv looked long and hard for any evidence of any of this stuff being true, and it just isnt. Not in the US and not in Canada.

They may talk up that kind of rhetoric, but thats just hamming it up for the base. When it comes to every measure you could look at from government spending, to taxes, to deficits there simply is no data to support that.

Whats most accurate would be to say that both sides favor a large intrusive government, they just disagree on what it should do and sometimes they disagree on whether it should be funded by taxation or borrowing.

There is a very small but notable libertarian movement though that does want smaller government.

[dre]

Conservatives know that if left alone government will constantly expand so it needs to regularly trimmed like a gardener prunes his azaleas.

Nice story... the problem is that its complete hogwash.

[TimG]

Nice story... the problem is that its complete hogwash.

Based on what? You have provided no alternate explanation other than to call conservatives liars and hypocrites (a rather pathetic argument which completely misses the point of the original op which was a question about the *objectives* of conservatives - a little hint: hypocrisy is an outcome not an objective). Edited June 26, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Based on what?

Good question! What is this little piece of urban mythology actually based on? Its not based on federal spending as a percentage of GDP. Its both shrank and grown under both Liberal and Conservative governments.

http://i.imgur.com/KLuOB.jpg

Liberal governments have been in power both during the largest up-trends and the largest down trends. Mulroney presided over both an up-trend and a down-trend but spending was about the same when he left as when he was sworn in. The current conservative government has also ticked in both direction, but as things stand now federal spending has grown during this government.

That chart has US numbers on it as well and its interesting to note the correlation.... even though for much of that time canada had a liberal government and US had conservative governments or vice versa. Youll see a similar correlation if you compare it with other western nations as well.

What that shows is that partisan political ideology is not the primary driver of either the size or cost of government, and in fact seems to barely be a factor at all. Macro economic factor play a much larger part... The .com boom allowed the liberals and democrats to reduce government as a percentage of GDP. The mortgage meltdown caused that upwards spike you see in both Canada and the US between late 2008 and 2011. Even though we have a Conservative administration, and they have a Democrat administration.

Same goes for deficits. The trend-lines sweep right through changes in party as if they didnt even happen.

You have provided no alternate explanation other than to call conservatives liars and hypocrites

Thats a total fabrication on your part. I never called them liars OR hypocrits. What I think is that both sides say what they think they need to say to get elected, but once you are actually the government what you actually do is dictated by events you have little control over. They are POLITICIANS is what Id call them. I dont think conservative politicians are any more dishonest or hypocritical than liberal ones.

And I gave you my alternate theory. I think partisan ideology is very important from an electioneering standpoint but not a very big driver of real policy at all.

Edited June 26, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

That chart has US numbers on it as well and its interesting to note the correlation....

You are missing the entire point again. The question is not about outcomes it is about the objectives. You can preach as much as you want about the outcomes but they don't actually answer the original question.

[dre]

You are missing the entire point again. The question is not about outcomes it is about the objectives. You can preach as much as you want about the outcomes but they don't actually answer the original question.

No no its you thats missing the point. The actual policies are the real reflection of what the objectives are... not the statements marketing researchers write for politicians during elections. Thats why its important to contrast what they SAY with what they actually do. And "small government" is a campaign slogan, not a real policy objective... as the record shows.

[TimG]

The actual policies are the real reflection of what the objectives are...

Nonsense. No one sets out to fail. In fact, very few political actors can ever achieve their desired objectives. Objectives and outcomes are two completely different things. If you can't distinguish between the two then you have nothing useful to add to the conversation. Edited June 26, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

Nonsense. No one sets out to fail. In fact, very few political actors can ever achieve their desired objectives. Objectives and outcomes are two completely different things. If you can't distinguish between the two then you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.

Its you that cant distinguish between campaign slogans and policy objectives.

[Guest Manny]

Casting aside arguments about whether they actually stand for that or whether they have even come close to accomplishing that, let's agree that reducing the government is one of the primary goals of the New Conservatives. The author points to a quote by Grover Norquist who worked under George W. Bush: "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Comedic notes aside, this thinking is worth looking at.

This is where the author of the aforementioned article says that what takes the place of government when it is lying dead and bloated in that bathtub is corporations. He falls down the hyperbole rabbit hole claiming that the Harper Conservatives are corporatists, which is another way of saying fascists.

So let's discuss the end game. What is the result of this? Do corporations then take over the role of government for society? Will we all live in a society that flourishes and thrives because barriers to corporate growth and prosperity will have been eliminated? Is this even the end game at all? Thoughts? Opinions?

No! I think the author is still trying to take you for a ride. Why replace one form of authoritarian control with another? Conservatives want LIMITED government, not NO government. The question at hand is, where to draw the line and what is the role of effective government.

And my thoughts and opinions are, the role of government is to protect from precisely this happening- that corporations and powerful individuals acquire too much power and influence, which would threaten the very essence of democracy. Government must safeguard society from control by powerful associations of wealthy business and private interests, and ensure a fair and level playing field. That's the only way that healthy competition in the economy will thrive. Monopolies, whether crown corporations or businesses that strategically seek to completely dominate/ own a market must be discouraged. This has to be done by rule of laws.

Another vital role of government is to set up regulations for public health and safety, and the environment. This too is done through laws and prevents corporations from destroying the country's natural resources.

Ensuring that criminal law is fair and the rights of the individual are protected. That innocence is presumed, until proven otherwise. It's the protection of the small from the very large that is a consistent theme. And the government itself can of course become the very large, and become a problem just exactly as corporations will if given total monopolistic control and total power. Even as regards to law, setting law according to moral issues should not be part of the governments purview. The rights of the individual should be held as supreme, within the broader scope of law and where the liberty of others is not jeopardized.

[eyeball]

So let's discuss the end game. What is the result of this? Do corporations then take over the role of government for society? Will we all live in a society that flourishes and thrives because barriers to corporate growth and prosperity will have been eliminated? Is this even the end game at all? Thoughts? Opinions?

Continue down this road and society will be comprised of beggars and choosers 'sharing' a wasteland dotted with a dwindling number of islands and oases of plenty. Corporate culture is to the Earth what the culture of the Rapanui was to Easter Island.

I suggest people look at bio-regionalism as the more natural and effective governing model. Communities of people need to take over the role that's been envisioned for corporations. As for reducing the size of government, I'm a lefty and I'd be eliminating provincial governments if I had anything to say about it.

[carepov]

Conservatives and Republicans talk the talk of reducing government but when was the last time they actually did?

PM Margaret Thatcher - 1980's

Thank you for proving my point. Mulroney, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Harper - all have been growing government.

Conservatives/Republicans = smaller government? No, I say it is a myth and an image/brand that they have used very successfully to get elected.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thank you for proving my point. Mulroney, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, Harper - all have been growing government.

You are only reading what you want to.....ignoring conservative efforts to reduce government and government spending. Bill Clinton worked with a Conservative/Republican House to achieve budget objectives.

Citing PM Thatcher was a single example to challenge your general premise about "conservatives" not reducing goverment, which she did. One can't just ignore her because it doesn't fit a false narrative.

Conservatives/Republicans = smaller government? No, I say it is a myth and an image/brand that they have used very successfully to get elected.

Maybe, and it certainly worked either way. That's why they are called politicians.

[carepov]

You are only reading what you want to.....ignoring conservative efforts to reduce government and government spending. Bill Clinton worked with a Conservative/Republican House to achieve budget objectives.

Citing PM Thatcher was a single example to challenge your general premise about "conservatives" not reducing goverment, which she did. One can't just ignore her because it doesn't fit a false narrative.

Maybe, and it certainly worked either way. That's why they are called politicians.

I think that you are misunderstanding me, I am not ignoring anything and there is nothing I want to read into. These days I dislike all political parties pretty much equally.

My general premise is not: "conservatives" do not reduce government

It is more like: there is no significant difference between "conservatives" and "liberals"

Overall I am a fiscal conservative and hate all wasteful spending.

Q: Which party should I support?

A: There is no clear answer. Despite the widely held assertion (I call it a myth) that Conservative/Republicans are more responsible financial managers - I could make a case for the Liberals/Democrats - it's a toss up, I really don't know who to support.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My general premise is not: "conservatives" do not reduce government

It is more like: there is no significant difference between "conservatives" and "liberals"

Depends on the time and place....political parties have successfully made such a distinction in the voting marketplace, real or imagined.

Overall I am a fiscal conservative and hate all wasteful spending.

Q: Which party should I support?

A: There is no clear answer. Despite the widely held assertion (I call it a myth) that Conservative/Republicans are more responsible financial managers - I could make a case for the Liberals/Democrats - it's a toss up, I really don't know who to support.

Can't help you there....I don't worry too much about what the Conservatives or Grits do in Canada, as it simply doesn't matter to me. Liberals are mostly tax and spend, while Conservatives are spend and spend.

[cybercoma]

it really does not matter which branches are lopped off as long as the growth is curbed

This is an incredible claim. There's just no nice way to respond to this.