The Illusion of Difference

The Illusion of Difference

by Paul Gottfried

In response to a speech by President Obama at Ohio State on May 5 criticizing those who warn about “tyranny,” there was a lively exchange last night by the Fox All-Stars about allowing the “state” to micromanage our lives. Kirsten Powers defended the Obama Administration’s interest in our well-being and the need for expanding this helpful role. In counterpoint, Jonah Goldberg and Tucker Carlson griped about the arbitrary power the present administration claims. Both speakers seconded someone from the CATO Institute who had been previously interviewed and complained that Obama was bringing back “the administration of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives.” Goldberg agreed, seeing that he had written a book blaming the welfare state on both the Progressives and European fascists. He and Carlson then spoke up for the “American way,” which means letting “adults look after themselves” and succeed or fail on their own.

This is all very nice, but no one on the panel was telling the truth. Government at all levels has been expanding for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. One had the impression while listening to this ritualized debate between “conservatives” and “liberals” that we were deciding for the first time whether we should have a government at all.

“Government at all levels has been expanding for decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike.”

We’re already blessed or cursed with a large managerial state that “conservatives” and “liberals” depend on equally for patronage and votes for their respective parties. If memory serves, Goldberg waxed indignant when Rand Paul, while running for the Senate, suggested abolishing the Department of Education and mentioned the conflict between some provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and what had been constitutionally protected property rights. For Goldberg, who screams at Wilsonian Progressives for establishing Big Government, it is “extremist” even to suggest that a federal Department of Education may be unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayers’ money or that our anti-discrimination mechanisms have been tyrannical for decades. Nothing would suit me better than “returning” to the infinitely smaller and less intrusive government that the Progressives bequeathed to us, as opposed to the far more intrusive one that the “libertarian” Goldberg wants to preserve.

The “conservative movement” and the GOP operate from a false pretense that they are straining to dismantle our vast bureaucratic state. Both our national parties are social democratic clubs that accept and implement in varying degrees the PC teachings that flow from our educational and cultural institutions. Our two national parties may have been pushed into their role of government-enlargers by overpowering forces that they (and particularly the Republicans) can’t effectively control. But let’s not lie about what’s going on, even if we admit that there are palpable differences between the parties: One is more interventionist in international relations, does slightly less to accommodate the media on social issues, and is a bit friendlier to business activities than the opposition it is organized to oppose. Republican voters and politicians also tend to be more typically white-bread WASPs, while those in the other camp come across as disgruntled, perpetually bitching minority and grievance claimants.

The issue at hand is not about whether we should have a large welfare state, one that has irreversibly affected our personal lives and which engages continuously in massive social engineering. That issue was settled decades ago, with the support of both parties and their electorates.

When talking to Europeans, I find it hard to explain that our Republicans are not wild-eyed anarchists working to dynamite the government. They are part of the problem and much closer to the moderate welfare-state parties in European countries than a group devoted to “getting government off our backs.” Our national parties exhibit certain rhetorical tics because their voters get their jollies out of listening to this noise. This may be the reality of American exceptionalism: We embrace political rhetoric that no one actually believes but which both parties seem to relish. We act as if we’re sitting back and deciding: “Should we have a state and if so, how large should it be?” We act as if that question is still up in the air.

This debate is so removed from political practice that I sometimes find myself applauding the designated left, at least on theoretical grounds. I agree that there is a need for some kind of state, and I am willing to have it assist those in dire material need. On a purely theoretical level, I stand more often with the organicists and communitarians than with the radical individualists, who want each person to sink or swim alone. When it comes to the practical details, I would give our present welfare state no more power than it has presently grabbed, and I would be delighted to have it reduced to a shadow of its present self. That is because I view the existing government as harmful to traditional social relations as well as being unwilling to leave us alone.

Before I depart this vale of tears, I would welcome this honest statement of purpose by GOP hacks and GOP politicians:

If given power, we will do nothing to reduce the size and scope of government, but we may try to make it function a bit more efficiently if we can manage that without losing our patronage power. Moreover, we will treat our voters as adults rather than as the lovers of empty phrases they’ve shown themselves to be.