Red Tories at the Grassroots?

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson raises a point I’ve pondered time and again: So much of what is associated with the Reagan “Revolution” is illusion, and those who scream the loudest for a return to the old style limited government and fiscal probity associated with the Reagan era are invoking a myth.

As Gerson observes:

During the Reagan years, big government got bigger, with federal spending reaching 23.5 percent of GDP (compared with just over 20 percent under the current president). But the Reagan reality is more admirable than the myth. He wisely chose what was historically necessary—large defense increases and tax reductions—over what was politically unachievable: a massive rollback of government.

Political expediency by any other name.

Aside from that, Dubya, despite the persistent stereotyping, is no bleeding heart compared with Reagan — really more of a stereotypical Republican grinch if you look at where many of his budget increases have been targeted:

Well over half of President Bush’s spending increases have gone to a range of unexpected security necessities, including military imminent-danger pay, unmanned aerial vehicles and biological-weapons vaccines. Other types of discretionary spending have increased at 3.9 percent a year on average—far below President Clinton’s double-digit growth in his final year. Why don’t anti-government conservatives mention spending increases on defense and homeland security when they make their critique? Because a minimalist state cannot fight a global war—so it is easier for critics to ignore the global war.

Gerson also explores a prevailing distinction within GOP ranks that should not be lost on those of use who harbor strong red tory sympathies: the widely divergent, largely mutually incompatible views of Republican libertarians and conservatives.

The combination of disdain for government, a reflexive preference for markets and an unbalanced emphasis on individual choice is usually called libertarianism. The old conservatives had some concerns about that creed, which Russell Kirk called “an ideology of universal selfishness.”

Conservatives are wary of government, not hostile to it. Within some contexts, they are even willing to stomach a surprisingly ample amount of it so long as it contributes to the common good (e.g., strengthening families, neighborhoods, schools, congregations). And while Republican libertarians — “purists,” as Gerson prefers to call them — still command the rhetorical high ground of debate within the party, many Republican governors, particularly Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, are busy translating authentic conservative principles into practical reality at the grassroots.

But there is another Republican Party—what might be called the party of the governors. It is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles—not a small thing in a post-Katrina world.