MINIMAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T EQUAL MAXIMAL LIBERTY

Here is an interesting article by a respected conservative. He explains that the current unbounded hatred of government by many conservatives does not serve the goal of maximum freedom.


^3/29/07: No U-Turns

By DAVID BROOKS

There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to
win again, the G.O.P. has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-
Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party,
the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism and states'
rights.

This is folly. It's the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the
wrong
prescription for the future.

Back in the 1970s, when Reaganism became popular, top tax rates were in
the 70s, growth was stagnant and inflation was high. Federal regulation
stifled competition. Government welfare policies enabled a culture of
dependency. Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the
capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.

In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think
that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People
were right to believe that government was undermining personal respon-
sibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay
in Cato Unbound, calls the "liberty vs. power" paradigm burned into their
minds -- the idea that big government means less personal liberty.

But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed.
Today the big threats to people's future prospects come from complex,
decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global
competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based
economy, economic and social segmentation.

Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their
freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these
amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The "liberty vs. power" paradigm is
less germane. It's been replaced in the public consciousness with a "secur-
ity leads to freedom" paradigm. People with a secure base are more free to
take risks and explore the possibilities of their world.

People with secure health care can switch jobs more easily. People who
feel free from terror can live their lives more loosely. People who come
from stable homes and pass through engaged schools are free to choose
from a wider range of opportunities.

The "security leads to freedom" paradigm is a fundamental principle of
child psychology, but conservative think tankers and activists have been
slow to recognize the change in their historical circumstance. All their
intellectual training has been oriented by the "liberty vs. power"
paradigm.
(Postwar planning in Iraq was so poor because many in the G.O.P. were
not really alive to the truth that security is a precondition for freedom.)

The general public, which is less invested in abstract principles, has
been quicker to grope its way toward the new mental framework. As a
Pew poll released last week indicated, the public has not lost its
suspicion
of big government. Most Americans believe government regulation does
more harm than good. But they do think government should be more active
in redressing segmentation and inequality. Almost all corporations,
including Wal-Mart, have extraordinarily high approval ratings. But
voters are clearly anxious about globalization.

The Republican Party, which still talks as if government were the biggest
threat to choice, has lost touch with independent voters. Offered a choice
between stale Democrats and stale Republicans, voters now choose Democrats,
who at least talk about economic and domestic security.

The Democrats have a 15 point advantage in voter identification. Voters
prefer Democratic economic policies by 14 points, Democratic tax
policies by 15 points, Democratic health care policies by 24 points and
Democratic energy policies by 20 points. If this is a country that wants
to return to Barry Goldwater, it is showing it by supporting the policies
of Dick Durbin.

The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public conscious-
ness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move
beyond the "liberty vs. power" paradigm. But because it was never fleshed
out and because the Congressional G.O.P. rejected the implant, a new
Republican governing philosophy did not emerge.

The party is going to have to make another run at it. As it does, it will
have to shift mentalities. The "security leads to freedom" paradigm
doesn't end debate between left and right, it just engages on different
ground. It is oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the
government off my back?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose
how to lead my life?).

Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they're not models for
the future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------