In the first "Learning Too Much From History" I discussed the many arguments offered that an Obama administration would "inevitably" bring about another "Class of 1994" or even a "new Reagan" in 2012. As we saw in the many who argued we needed to stop being the "party of no" ("Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? "), one assumption, that the loss would inevitably drive the party right, was false. Many in the party, as I predicted ("Why We Need Adults","One More Reason Not To Sit It Out") were quite ready to run as far left as their legs would carry them, while the right seemed paralyzed by the Obama poll numbers. And, with 2010 approaching, it also seems that "Class of 1994" hopes may be overblown as well. We have a fair likelihood of a big Republican win, but that does not mean the same thing as a conservative win, and, while there are some real conservatives running, there is also every sign the victors will include a fair number of "business as usual" Republicans.

But I am not writing this to point out the failure of old predictions. Instead I want to discuss a second error that seems common among those who know too much history, and that is assuming past patterns are determinative. One such example came from a comment I received from Rich, which probably does accurately describe the Democrats' thinking:

And the D know that once this is in place, it will be virtually impossible to rollback in any meaningful way. In the history of Western democracies, a major entitlement of this size has never been repealed - in fact they tend only to expand. Basically, the dependentcy on the nannystate eliminate true conservative governance ever again - in the UK, etc the "conservative" parties essentially dont question the nanny state premise but only say they can run it better.

The problem with this is the same one Julian Simon once mentioned in relying on trends, if you jump off the Eiffel Tower, relying on an ever accelerating fall is valid, right until you make contact with the ground. Or, to put it more accurately, every event had "never happened", until it did.

The problem with such predictions is twofold. First, that the modern welfare state is terribly new in the US, having been born only in the mid-60's, and really taking shape only with the Carter growth in the later 70's. Thirty or forty years is not enough time to form a clear conclusion of any political trend. And if we look to Europe for lessons, that is a worse model, as the political conditions of the older welfare state, say the Prussian, later German, model, there is just little comparison to the US. For example, we never had a clergy which served as an adjunct to the state, nor state regulated universities. The amount of traditional authoritarianism in many states with a long welfare tradition makes them poor models. So we are left with a brief history of welfare in the US.

And even there it is inaccurate to say entitlements have never been rolled back at all. For example, the previously mentioned class of 1994, while not eliminating AFDC (Aid for Families with Dependent Children), they did drastically reduce the scope of the program. And, if we leave the topic of entitlements to individuals, there were a number of interventionist measures that had "never" been repealed in the past which were repealed during the Reagan era. For instance, worldwide, I can think of no instance of deregulation after banking had been centralized, yet Reagan did successfully deregulate at least some sectors of banking. Similarly, transportation, once nationally regulated had never been deregulated prior to airline deregulation. And since then deregulation has happened again and again, to the point no one ever thinks of saying it has "never been tried".

And that is my point In 1978, had I proposed banking deregulation or deregulating airlines, many would have made the point made in Rich's comment, it had never happened in history. Now that it has happened, it is not even noteworthy when a state tries a deregulation scheme. There is still a fight from vested interests, but no doubt that the fight is possible for the deregulation side to win.

Now, this is not to say rolling back entitlements will be easy. Any program with a vested interest will be hard to repeal. However some are easier than others. For instance, thanks to the low turnout of poor voters, welfare in most forms is a viable political target. Likewise, I think once the many shortcomings of ObamaCare become obvious, many who are "beneficiaries" will be happy to vote to be rid of it. On the other hand, the mortgage tax credit is probably a difficult fight to win, as so many voters benefit from it.

But beyond vested interests there is one other factor which makes Rich's comment somewhat valid, but not inevitable. Our current public mindset makes reform difficult. Not because people inevitably support big government that benefits them, but because people have been misinformed about the purpose of government for far too long. Instead of the thoughts of the founders, they have been taught the thoughts of ward healers and political hacks like FDR and Clinton and Obama. They have been told the government is a panacaea suitable to cure all ills. And so they tend to look for politicians who promise the moon.

That is the problem we must solve. Not the inevitability of government growth, but the force driving present growth, the public misunderstanding of the role of government ( "What We Deserve", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "Who Is To Blame?", "What is Wrong with Us", "The Single Greatest Weakness"). Unfortunately, this is a task at which conservatives after Reagan have failed. Partly because it is politically expedient for them to bring home pork, and so difficult for them to be consistent ("The Difficulty of Principle", "Good Intentions"), and partly because many don't believe in it themselves ("Special Cases", "Why We Lose", "Guess I Am An "Extremist""). But that is what we need, conservatives who are both consistent and have the courage of their convictions, who will stand firm even while others bribe their voters with pork (and not through the Ron Paul dodge of voting against pork he knows others will pass, to his benefit), who will say things the voters might not want to hear, and will tell them why he says it.

Once we find a few such politicians, maybe then things will start to change, and the country will turn away from growing government. And before anyone tells me it is a pipe dream, recall we had dozens of such men in the founders, and they arose in an even more authoritarian environment.So it is far from impossible.