I have heard many times that the "problem" with Republicans, or conservatives, or libertarians, is that they are always "against" things, and that they fail to present a "big picture" of "what you want to do in government". In fact, even some conservatives adopt this perspective, arguing that Reagan was successful because he managed to tell people what he would do. However, I think there is a rather big problem in this argument. there is something in it that is correct, but not much. And where it is wrong, it explains quite well how we ended up in the situation we are in today.

The part that is right is in the complaint about "being against things". Now, there is nothing wrong in being an opposition party, or even in opposing government expansion. However, the problem often is that conservatives are not just against specific policies, but that they adopt the negative, nagging tone that some Democrats do, or even drift into paranoid conspiracy theories as I mentioned in many, many posts (most are cited in my post "Conspiracy Theory Enters the Mainstream "). Where Reagan succeeded was in being opposed while still seeming optimistic and positive. He wasn't just arguing for smaller government, he was advocating for limited government, selling it. He would glow when talking of freedom, and make people feel that limiting government was the best thing in the world.

And that is what we really need to do, become more optimistic. Limbaugh used to do this, and still does most of the time, though my limited recent listening worries me that a little bit of the "Angry Right" may have infected Rush. (Take this with a grain of salt, as I have had little opportunity to listen to him recently, so my impression is drawn from a VERY limited number of shows.) Still, he is probably the best modern advocate for a positive, optimistic opposition. Similarly, look at the left. Did the nagging, scolding, school marmish nay-sayers win? Or did the fellow selling hollow promises of "hope" and "change"? The lesson is obvious. People may sometimes be moved by fear, they may be pushed from time to time by scolds and nags, but when picking leaders, by and large they prefer the people who seem confident and happy to those who worry and fret. And that is where this complaint is valid.

And the only place. The rest of the complaint is utter rubbish. Or, perhaps it is valid, but only because the statists have set the terms of the debate for so long.

Allow me to explain. Whenever the conservatives are excoriated for not "telling what they would do", the implicit assumption is that the state must be "doing something". And that is where the problem lies, as the conservative position is precisely that the state should be doing less, much less. So the conservatives, provided they are honest, will never have "big plans", as their very position, their core beliefs, argue against it.

So, why does this complaint arise? Because people have become used to thinking in terms of big government. Despite the brief Reagan era of small government Republicans, by and large, since the time of FDR, both parties have accepted big government as not only a reality, but a necessity. The left and right have both been arguing for more and more government involvement. Even conservatives have often, inconsistently, allowed that, while being for smaller government, some specific crisis "demands" government action. And this combination of general big government advocacy, and conservative exceptionalism, has convinced the public that big government is the solution to any problem, resulting in a general public unwillingness to accept small government solutions.

As I said before, anyone coming out to say "this is not the government's job" would not only be criticized, but run out of office.

So, in that regard, I suppose this criticism is a valid complaint. If conservatives don't advocate big government solution, then, in today's environment, they may suffer. However, that is a short sighted perspective. We may be trapped in a big government time, but there are still reasons to hope. There are many who understand the conservative message (though far too much exceptionalism exists in most conservative thought), and there is every reason to think we can change public thought. But only if we resist the easy route of adopting big government solutions for easy votes and instead stick to our beliefs.

We need only look at the past to see it is possible.

Prior to about 1890 or 1900 there would have been little support for any politician advocating an activist central government. Even the few measures that were enacted were limited to matters traditionally subject to federal oversight, such as interstate trade. That all changed between about 1914 and 1945. From Wilson to FDR the face of government was modified to such a degree that when Goldwater appeared, advocating a return to the more traditional limits of federal government, he was seen as unrealistic and radical by many. And, in the end, perhaps he was. He failed to win over enough support to win. But, on the other hand, he did manage to gain enough support that Reagan could not only win in 1980, but even make a good showing four years earlier. So, unrealistic as Goldwater's position was, he did manage to change public attitudes.

And we can accomplish the same. If we ignore the advice that we need to present a "big picture" that includes massive government involvement, if we continue to advocate for small government, and, more importantly, do so in terms of positive, optimistic arguments, explaining the benefits of smaller government, rather than deploring the current state all the time, then we can see times change again.

However, if we listen to the advice of those who think we need to "move with the times" and "accept reality", then that "reality" will be all that will remain, and we will be stuck with another decade or two or three of big government.

POSTSCRIPT

I know I write a lot about the problems of the day, but I think I have been fairly good in following my own advice. Check out my posts "Why I Am Not A Libertarian" (despite the negative title), "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "The Benefits of Federalism", "Fairness and the Free Market" and "Planning For Imperfection" to see how I have argued for the benefits of freedom, rather than just criticizing the damage done by intervention. Granted, there is some criticism of the current situation in each, but by and large the posts cited argue for the benefits of the free market, minimal government and federalism. Even my posts "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II" and "Why Gold?", while arguing against the fallacies of modern monetary theories manage to show the benefits to be gained from a gold-based, free, privately run monetary system.