The Unstoppable Growth of Government

I want to make a quick note here:

In the last decade or three of governance, a disturbing trend has arisen in politics. The "size" (and in this case, it is prudent to indicate that I mean "relative power") of the Federal Government is increasing rapidly in my estimation.

Now a good historian will stop me here to point out that the size of the Federal Government has been growing since the drafting of the Constitution and the emergence of the Federalist Party. Although I will not disagree with this point, nor the point that in the 19th century Abraham Lincoln and his predecessors probably issued in the largest advance of federal powers in US history-- see: Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression (depending on where you live)-- it is important to examine party politics since the last great re-alignment of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the Reagan era because it can provide a reasonable prediction of the future of Federal Government growth.

I expect that my educated readers understand what I mean when I say that there are three ideological categories that with relative simplicity all political positions can divided. These are National Security Policy, Social Policy, and Economic Policy (the way I have broken this down, to demonstrate a point, allows 'foreign policy' to have aspects apply to all three of these categories).

For the most part, the Democratic Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Liberal Social Policy, a Liberal Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-choice, they support gay rights, they support clear separation of church and state, (Economic) pro-business regulation, pro-federal spending, pro-federal market intervention, pro-environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.  

For the most part, the Republican Party, as it currently exists, has been pushing for a Conservative Social Policy, a Conservative Economic Policy, and a Conservative Security Policy. This means that they are (Social) pro-life, they support traditional definitions of marriage and family structures, they are think church/state separation has gone too far, (Economic) pro-market capitalism, in favor of deficit reduction, in favor of business de-regulation, against environmental protections, (Security) in favor of increased government surveillance, in favor of more homeland security, and in favor of "War on Terror" prosecution abroad.


Sorry for the review for those who were already clear on this point. The Government grows in power when these perspectives are applied: Conservative Social Policy (government control of society), Liberal Economic Policy (government control of the economy), and Conservative Security Policy (government control of security and privacy). 

Although the parties disagree about whether the government should have control of the economy or society, it turns out that the Federal Government will increase its share of power regardless.

For Democrats, the primary issue that their coalition is built upon is a Liberal Economic Policy. At all costs, they will hold Republicans hostage on this issue, ensuring blockage of legislation that might decrease Federal powers in this regard. The reason for this is because, for the most part, the American public is in FAVOR of the Democrats' economic message (by and large Americans like federal control of medicare, social security, government oversight of wall street, higher taxes on the wealthy, unemployment protections etc.). It is unlikely, even with the brief sojourn we are having over in Tea Party land, that there will be substantial changes on these issues; in fact, it is reasonable to say that the US will continue to socialize (very, very slowly) it's economy-- socialist rhetoric is not popular, but socialist policy tends to be.

Meanwhile, liberalism in Social Policy has been stagnating, partially because Americans tend to be socially conservative as a rule. Very few Americans care passionately about advancing Social Policy in general, but it people on the Religious Right tend to have the larger megaphone on this issue, and it becomes disadvantageous for Democrats to focus too much on this area. Republicans, however, love to use social policy as a wedge issue (bringing up controversial subjects like the NYC Mosque in order to break up the Democratic coalition) because Republicans tend to be on the winning side on this subject. To a large degree, social policy isn't moving either direction right now, which retains Federal powers at their current levels.

Then, finally and most importantly, in practice, both political parties are in favor of increased government powers in Security Policy, which means that whichever party is in control, you can expect government growth in this area. Period. The continued and increasing reliance on the Military-Industrial complex, citizen surveillance, and anti-terrorism rhetoric will guarantee the more powers for the Federal Government.

These details and ideological demographics of the American electorate are providing a unique situation where there is little political upside or chance for political success for either party to pursue a decrease in federal powers. Couple this with the fact that elected officials in the Federal Government will tend to support the increase of their own powers in one way or another, and small-government proponents like Libertarians are finding themselves without much leverage.

A recognition of the inevitable movement in this country toward more 'larger' Federal Government seems to be the main motivation for the development of the Liberty movement and the Tea Party which I mentioned in the post before last. I think that this group or any others will soon find that they will not be able to stop the inexorability of Government growth, absent another major party re-alignment, a major change in American attitudes toward policy, or the emergence of a real and influential third party.


There might be a reasonable argument that this perspective is short-sighted or ignores area of Federal contraction, and I am open to these criticisms. In general, we will simply have to see what happens as the future approaches, but perhaps I have convinced you of what is likely to happen, for better or worse.

The Tea Party Coalition

A lot of people don't realize that our beloved American Tea Party movement is not a group of ideologically pure individuals in agreement. It is a coalition, a group of people with diverse views on a variety of issues, but one major issue to bring them together. In this case the driving issue is economic conservatism. To explain, it can be reasonably argued that the history of what became the Tea Party actually began in 2007 with the general public backlash against the President at the time, George Bush.

Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas shocked audience members at the Republican Presidential Primary debates with his message of extreme fiscal conservatism bordering on outright libertarianism. Though most Republicans were incensed at some of Paul's 'extreme' positions, a number of people who were frustrated with the growth of government spending found for the first time in a long time a person they felt like they could get behind. A person who was unwilling to compromise, had a record of "no" votes on almost anything growing the government, and was charismatic in a folksy way. With massive online fundraising campaigns he called "money bombs" Paul managed to stay in the primary fight long after others had been forced out, picking up support from 5-15% of the Republican electorate in all over the United States. He capped off his bid with an event that took place at the same time as the Republican National Convention that he called the "Rally for the Republic" after being denied a speaking slot at the RNC. More than 10,000 people attended. The groundswell was quite impressive, and the anti-establishment sentiment was clear.

Though Paul's campaign did not result in the Republican nomination for President, and the GOP leaders dismissed his effort as extremist noise, Paul went on eventually to found the C4L (Campaign for Liberty) and went to work trying to elect what he called "constitutional conservatives" to public office. Notable persons that C4L supported include William (BJ) Lawson (R) in NC-04, Adam Kokesh (R) in NM-03, and Bob Conley (D) for SC Senate, none of whom were successful. But the string of attempts, continuing fundraising, and foundation of C4L (and YAL Young Americans for Liberty) chapters throughout the US-- efforts continued through 2008 and 2009 at which point something began to happen in American politics.

The thing that was unique about the C4L or Ron Paul movement (we'll call it the "Liberty" movement) was that it embraced a variety of socially liberal values like elimination of drug enforcement and additional gay rights. Meanwhile the movement called for a return to isolationist American values and the withdrawal of all US troops abroad with the intent of a drawdown of defense spending. We'll come back to this point later.

Some of the first protests that established the Tea Party on the national stage were in response to major bills that increased the size of government spending and bureaucracy, including TARP, the Recovery Act, and Health Care legislation. By the middle of 2009, the Tea Party had already become influential in many local races and in the beginning of 2010, the surprise upset of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for Senate solidified the group in the national dialogue. Ron Paul was considered a darling, maybe even a founder, of the movement and his son, Rand Paul, used his Tea Party and C4L roots to build the momentum for a major Senate campaign in Kentucky. The rallying cry for the movement was the same as it had been during Ron Paul's upward battle in 2008: pay down the deficit, eliminate bureaucracy, and leave American free enterprise out of the scope of the government.

During those early days, there weren't clear Tea Party leaders like there are today. Many media outlets turned to Ron Paul and his son, Rand, to talk about the movement in connection to what they had started in 2007. But within a matter of months, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann had established themselves as major "Tea Partiers" and the movement started to show some distinct colors that had been (to some degree) hidden before 2010. Suddenly the Tea Party movement organizers started talking about more things than just economic conservatism. They started talking about the corruption of the family, the evils of Islamic terrorism, and the denigration of American Christianity. Rand Paul, at this point running a very national Senate campaign, on cue began to backtrack on some of his previous socially libertarian positions, becoming hawkish on foreign policy, snapping shut on drug enforcement, and reinforcing his ties to the Christian right. His change in attitude was not just a reflection of the internal concerns of a Kentucky Senate race, but were also a reflection of major shifts in the Liberty movement.

Now the prime examples of true Tea Partiers are people like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, Joe Miller, and Carly Fiorina (look these people up if you like, you'll see what I mean). Suddenly the Tea Party made it a mission to bring down the Islamic Cultural Center in NYC by drawing on xenophobia, racism, and security concerns within the Tea Party movement. Rand Paul, at this point having defeated the establishment GOP candidate in a primary, proved his clear hard right position by coming out against the mosque.

Meanwhile his father, stubborn as ever, continued to toe his original socially pluralistic line: diversity is good in America, of course Muslims should build the mosque there, why in the world shouldn't they? But where was the rest of the Tea Party when Ron Paul was breaking with them on these issues? Rallying against the Mosque in NYC and spouting rhetoric that seemed to recall traditional GOP fear mongering.

So what happened to those original supporters of Ron Paul's? What happened to the Liberty movement? It's still alive today, as a sub-faction of the Tea Party. It turns out that the Tea Party is a coalition: eager for substantial conservative change on economic issues, original Liberty activists were glad to make room in their movement for foreign policy hawks, the Christian Right, and even members of the establishment GOP. For now, they're content to work with these other people to enact serious fiscal discipline on the part of the Government. At this point its safe to say that the Liberty movement is a minority within the Tea Party, and as long as President Obama continues in office, its unlikely that there will be any major defections from Tea Party ranks from those who would see Ron Paul as President.

But the Tea Party is now a hard right-wing movement that has essentially stripped of itself of all non-economic ideals associated with the Liberty movement. It'll be interesting to see how this coalition holds up as the future progresses. "Libertiers" will be content for now to work with people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but for how long? This Coalition and this movement are still brand new; can its leaders manage to appease its growing and diversifying membership, or will the group fall into factionalist disarray when some of the original backbone of the groundswell is neglected? The way it's going now, the Tea Party's obsession with "purity" may weed out some of its own members from amidst its own grumbling and disaffected ranks, leaving the GOP with a shrinking set of values (and voters) from which to draw upon, and perhaps leading to the break-up of the once-powerful Tea Party Coalition.