Politicians on both sides of the aisle have failed to put aside their own self-interests to govern at both the state and national levels.  They have breached the trust of the public and enriched themselves and their friends by expanding the reach of government into our houses and now our banks.

We expect government expansion with Democrats.

But as the saying goes, “Fool me once; shame on you.  Fool me twice; shame on me.”  The national public apparently feels like it has been fooled by the GOP one time too many.

And after this election, we may all look like fools.

But as the party of limited government, the GOP must be willing to adhere to this basic principle:

Less is more.

In other words, limited government and fewer taxes enrich the majority of people in America.

To focus on anything other than these two things is to prove ourselves to be hypocrites.  We cannot acquire or maintain the public trust when we, like Wayne Gilchrest, so closely resemble the Democrats that our constituents cannot tell the difference.

But note Henke’s observation:

The Right made the “limited government” arguments, but never had the politically viable game plan for doing something about it; once elected, they were captive to the systemic incentives to distribute rewards to the rent-seeking interest groups.

It is not the ideology that has failed. Indeed, while the politicians themselves have failed, that is not even the root of the problem. What has really failed is the movement itself. A political movement’s support system is its destiny. The Right has a support system that ultimately supports the Republican Party, not the ideology. Rather than creating an infrastructure that develops and implements politically viable ideas for effectively limiting government, the Right has built an infrastructure for a political party that can appeal to the public’s range of “conservative” interests, but cannot implement them. The Right’s infrastructure is sustaining only half of the equation – the maintenance of power, without the implementation of the vision.

A half-vast right wing conspiracy is not enough.

The best case scenario for the Right is a fundamental reorientation of the movement toward (a) politically viable policy innovation that addresses the underlying political incentive problems, and (b) movement infrastructure that supports the ideology and agenda, rather than merely enabling the Party. In short, the Right will only win if the Right emerges with a better vision and a better support system to pursue that vision.

In the past the GOP has attempted to address item (a) by floating the idea of term limits.  However, as the political system exists in its current form, there is a decided disincentive for either party to embrace such an ideological shift, especially when it would require a mandated change of the guard on a regular basis.

And opponents of the idea posit that our system of elections already provides for term limits by putting the responsibility for the outcomes of the elections squarely on the shoulders of the voters.

Or on those responsible for registering…and re-registering…and re-registering people to vote.  Even if they do register 73 times… .

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am and is filed under Fiscal Conservative, Maryland Politics, National Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.