A few days ago, I posted in favor of a debt commission. I just wanted to clarify my views on the subject. My preference would be to phase out all entitlement benefits and impose stringent controls on the way Congress can appropriate money, but the former will definitely not happen, and the latter has a frighteningly low probability. But that is precisely the point. Rather focus on particular policy victories (which are few and fare between), I am more interested in how many people are becoming libertarians, or at least more skeptical of big government, which nowadays, is a common phenomenon. The more attention the federal fiscal crisis receives, the greater the “net influx” of libertarians will be.
Furthermore, raising taxes now (along with at least modest reform of benefits) is better than completely kicking the can down the road, at which point the options will be even less palatable: even more tax increases being weighed against even greater benefit cuts, along with a more-enfeebled economic position for the US in the global economy. If the recommendations are heavy on the tax-raising side, at least it will introduce Americans to the reality of the fiscal problem in a very poignant way, by hurting their pocketbooks. This, hopefully, will result in more libertarians.
Simply put, without getting into the nuances of the trade-off between the two, I would value more libertarians above short-, or even long-term policy successes. Of course, policy successes are great, and ultimately, that is what most people are after. However, more libertarians will eventually lead to more liberty-friendly government, and in a more sustainable way. Does it really matter if the government is more libertarian for a few years, only to be voted out of power?
If I were you I would take the policy wins. Even if you just focus on people who are becoming skeptical of big government, you will find people with extremely hypocritical positions. They like their highways, libraries, and social security checks, but they believe most government spending is waste, because they don’t know what we actually spend most of our federal budget on. They may talk the talk, but when it comes to ending all entitlement spending, they don’t walk the walk. Take for example, the converts Mitt Romney was targeting at CPAC:
So, I agree that most citizens are not well-informed about government activities (in particular, government finances), as the article you point to does a good job arguing. However, I would prefer that people be wrong and be libertarian than that they be right and have other ideological sympathies. In the long run, better policy outcomes will result, and people will hopefully adopt libertarian beliefs for the right reasons. The article you cite talks about Americans in general, not libertarians. When you say, “Even if you just focus on people who are becoming skeptical of big government, you will find people with extremely hypocritical positions,” this is true of some, but I am not sure that on average, they are any less knowledgeable or rational than people who support big government. In my experience, the opposite is the case.
I am not sure how your Romney quote supports your argument. Also, I am not sure what he meant by a “surely vanishing cut in Medicare”.
Also, as I said in my post, “Does it really matter if the government is more libertarian for a few years, only to be voted out of power?” Policy change has limited value if it does not last a reasonable amount of time.
As a side note, I remember one of my teachers in high school claiming that poor people pay more than rich people in federal income taxes. When I challenged his assertion, he “backed off” and claimed that they pay a larger share of their income than rich people do. Eventually, I dropped it, but I wonder how many students in my class were misled. To add insult to injury, this was at one of the most elite private schools in Florida, and no one in the class either knew enough or cared enough to express their agreement with me.
Romney is trying to forge a conservative consensus behind him in his run for president, and to do that, he decided to be against government run health care, but for Medicare (which is government run health care for the elderly) – a logically precarious position to say the least, but one he thinks will resonate with a number of these new, small government conservatives.
As to your question, “Does it really matter if the government is more libertarian for a few years, only to be voted out of power?” If the policy changes end with the administration it might not be worth it. However, it is unlikely that policy change would be swift. Look how much change the Democrats have accomplished with a supermajority after overtaking one of the most hypocritical and unpopular leaders in generations. Even most Republicans don’t like Bush’s domestic policy. Changing government is hard; even electing opposition leaders doesn’t lead to quick changes in it’s course. You can give the founders credit for one thing, they succeeded in making our government slow moving.
As a side note, at least half of that high school class wasn’t paying attention.
Not having followed Romney recently, I’ll take your word for it. However, I wonder if he is really trying to appeal to small-government conservatives or if he is just part of a trend that you cite on your blog (see here, which is worth reading, especially the Ross Douthat post Joel links to), in which Republicans seem to be buying the support of over-65 voters by defending Medicare and Social Security. Being “against government-run health care, but for Medicare” seems to both explain and be explained by that trend.
Your point on how difficult it is to change government is well taken.
I would like to put out a couple of ideas that might even support your argument in favor of short-term policy successes: (1) The status quo perpetuates itself. (2) Current trends in policy influence, often in the same “direction”, trends in ideas, with the occasional backlash.
To elaborate on (1), it falls right out of what you are saying, that it is difficult to change government policy. Hence, one might imagine that in a more libertarian world, it would be difficult to make things less libertarian, and in a less libertarian world, the opposite is true. Therefore, we should favor short-term policy successes.
To exemplify (2), once a particular entitlement exists, not only is it difficult to get rid of because of entrenched interests, but people start to genuinely believe that one has a right to it. Over time, especially in the next generation, people can’t imagine the world otherwise, and it becomes entrenched. Similar trends probably occur in attitudes towards immigration, education, regulation, et al. On a broader note, people in the United States probably can’t imagine living in a country without democracy (unless, perhaps, they grew up in one). Many Americans think that it is synonymous with prosperity, or something along those lines. China may end up challenging this assumption. (In fact, it may also end up challenging various common libertarian assumptions regarding the interaction between authoritarianism and economic prosperity, but I digress.) Hence, current trends in government have implications for trends in ideas. Of course, they can cause a backlash, like the burgeoning backlash against big government.
On a different note, your claims about voter ignorance probably extend to moderates, as well, whom you seem to have developed an affection for (see here).