“Give up on small government, focus on limited government”- the last small *or* limite government GOP President was Hoover; even his zombie corpse has fallen apart. Bush put the nails in the coffin with his gleeful Deciderer imperial presidency.

“Take the libertarian route when it comes to culture” – the GOP has been waging culture war since at least Nixon. It’s rather hard to give up a fifty-year policy. In addition, many factions of the GOP (neocons, religious right, business elites) are flat out happy with a powerful, interventionalist government. They just dislike it when it does particular things they oppose.

“Give up on neoconservatism” – again, a fifty year old policy, taking a low-ball estimate. You’re basically asking the GOP to give up militarism, Empire and fat DoD contracts.

“Re-embrace intellectualism” – giving up on populism. And in a party which has gleefully benn driving out college grads for a few decades, a major reversal.

“Critically embrace tradition” – the right is split behind mindless worship of outdated traditions, and gleeful trashing of any traditions which get in the way of money and power. You’re asking for a 180 degree turn.

“Find meaningful ways of talking about religious pluralism” – the religious right’s only embraceable religious pluralism is what right-wing church does one belong to (and they’re split on whether or not the Catholic Church should be included or persecuted). You’ll have to break the back of the religious right to do this.

And the biggie that you haven’t mentioned – stop being the party of the economic elites. The GOP has spent several decades devoted to the idea of redistributing wealth upwards. The American people are now bottomed out.

This leads to the others – given economic elitism, cultural populism is necessary to get votes. Unthinking cultural populism, because thinking cultural populists might notice the economic elitism. Religious fervor is needed, for the same reason. Racial hatred is needed, so that p*ss-poor whites will identify with the Party of the Rich. Anti-intellectualism is needed, because social science is an enemy. And so on.

Cheers.

I see your “nonsense” and raise you a nonsense.

Nonsense. Actually government can be quite small and still be limited.

My argument had nothing to do with limits except my last statements applauding and acknowledging the need for limits.

My argument was directed to the fact that the words small and limited are interchangeable. I stand by that.

I think we agree more than you are willing to say. I know it’s tacky but to quote myself, “Government should be restricted, government should be limited.” Neither you or I want unlimited government. If we disagree it’s over where to draw the boundaries, and I bet our differances would not be great.

Nonsense. Actually government can be quite large and still limited. For instance a government could have a massive welfare apparatus and still limit itself in terms of regulating business or spying on its citizenry. It might not be a small government but it limits its scope in some sense. Similarly, I think there’s room for a big federal government which still allows the states and local governments a great deal of autonomy – a form of limits.

So I would agree with you that the course of events in the past and probably in the future is the growth of government, but that doesn’t mean that at the same time we can’t determine better limits for it.

First, let me define “small” from my dictionary, Webster’s New Word Dictionary, “1. little in size especially when compared with others of the same kind; not large or big; limited in size.” “Limited in size.” So on the very conservative view, words have meanings, I reject any distinction of small v limited government. One can call for smaller government, one can call for a more limited government but only the phrasing differ. The goal is the same. I know there is discussion on the web, Will Wilkinson and others, trying to re-define and draw a distinction between small and limited government but I am not buying it. “Six of one, half dozen of the other.” I’m going to remain firm on this pending a strong rebut.

But historically I very much reject the notion of small/limited government. You write, “For all intents and purposes, government has been growing for the past number of decades regardless of the leadership in power at any given time.” Correct, but only partiality. It is more correct to say that the purpose of government has expanded since the Constitution was ratified, and even before it was ratified. The weak central government under the Articles of Confederation saw fit to decree where slavery could be prohibited. The Northwest Ordinance, 1787, prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, a clear restriction of slave holders rights. With the adoption of the Constitution the battle over the scope of government continued. Just mentioning Jefferson’s disputes with Hamilton, Federalist versus Anti-Federalist, is enough to remind you that the argument over small/limited government is a hardy perennial. And for me the conclusion is very much inescapable, growth of government. Small government is a myth. I don’t think an argument can be made for smaller government existing in any period of American history.

All the above does not negate the possibility of some sort of rollback in the scope of government. I accept it as a discussion worth having. I applaud libertarians and the ACLU fighting governmental expansion into many areas. Government should be restricted, government should be limited.

One last point, one that should not be necessary to make. Conseratives are not alone in calling of small government. The areas where government should shrink is what is most often in dispute.

I can’t see the future, but I will tell you this, if such retrenchment of powers takes place it will correctly be called a smaller government or a limited government.

“But if conservatives can find a way of walking the walk of populism without necessarily talking the talk of populism, they might have a recipe for success sooner than we all tend to think.”

I’m confused by the above. The phrase you are refereeing to goes something along these lines, “you can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?” or variations of that. In other words, words are cheap, “talk,” while actions, “walk” may be difficult. Certainly more difficult than mouthing a few platitudes. So why would conservatives “walk” populism but not “talk” populism? If populism has worthy goals, “walk,” why eschew the “talk” (vocabulary) of populism?

On another level you seem to be describing both history and the present. The GOP has long talked a certain brand of populism, silent majority, moral majority, center right electorate but have failed to deliver the goods to these voters – overturning Roe v Wade, prayer amendment, gay marriage amendment, smaller government, balanced budgets, etc. And conseratives, religious and secular, have, on occasion, called the GOP on their lack of follow through. In short, GOP lots of talk, little walk.

Last, I do not share your, but more so E.D.’s, distaste of populism. I can easily envision a populism of the right that I would absolutely despise but my reading of American history tells me that this country is not prone to radicalism of either right or left. Even during the darkest days of the Depression Americans rejected radical, left, politics. Americans also rejected reactionary, right, politics.

I think this might be your weakest argument or suggestion, but your small v limited government ranks near the top.

More?