From a distance, the story of modern American conservatism looks like one of triumph. After the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, conservatives reversed course and grew to become the dominant faction in the Republican Party.
By 1980, Ronald Reagan, a true believer in the conservative creed and a disciple of Goldwater, was elected president in the midst of an economic crisis not unlike our own. As president, Reagan championed conservative ideas at every opportunity.
In the decades since then, an extraordinary wave of entrepreneurship has helped make America, or at least part of it, richer, freer, and more dynamic.
To the left, this triumphant narrative looks much darker. Liberals point to the explosion in income and wealth inequality over the past 30 years and to the stagnation of incomes in the middle of the spectrum. They point to the electoral and organizational resources of conservatives, largely funded by the wealthy and powerful, as an almost insuperable obstacle to moving the country leftward. Viewed through this lens, the fact that the debt limit debate seems to have been resolved through a promise of deep spending cuts over the next decade is grist for the mill.
But the truth is that conservatives haven’t been winning for a long time. Ever since the New Deal era, Congress has had the freedom to regulate almost every aspect of national economic life, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have not hesitated to take advantage. The president commands a vast array of bureaucracies devoted to shaping the way we work, travel, eat, exercise, and sleep, and the executive branch is increasingly seen as the guarantor of American prosperity.
There is a powerful built-in bias toward an expanding federal government, and conservative political victories have done very little to change that. As a result, the welfare state has been ascendant.
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development traces in the richest countries the growth in public social expenditures, including spending on insurance programs, education and tax breaks designed to achieve society’s goals.
In the United States, inflation-adjusted public social expenditures at the federal, state and local level increased more than 80 percent from 1990 to 2005. Inflation-adjusted GDP, in contrast, grew just more than 50 percent. That is, the welfare state grew much faster than the U.S. economy as a whole.
In the core economies of the European Union, which American conservatives so often deride as incorrigibly socialist, public social expenditures increased somewhat less over the same period.
This was an era of robust economic growth, when an increasing number of Americans were in a position to draw on their own resources to look after their health, education and retirement needs. In 1996, President Bill Clinton famously declared, “The era of big government is over.” Yet a close look at the numbers reveals that big government barely noticed. One could make the case that when the economy was growing at a healthy clip, we could afford a more generous welfare state.
But now, with the economy stagnant and long-term unemployment at dangerously high levels, the welfare state has had to swell in size. So good times are favorable for the growth of the welfare state — and bad times are good for the growth of the welfare state as well.
Despite the profound pessimism of liberals, who will never stop believing that their right-wing opponents are wily and effective, they’ve unknowingly found themselves in a can’t-lose position. The uncompromising stance of tea party conservatives in the debt ceiling debate has been all about changing this dynamic.
While Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were willing to make significant concessions to avoid a default, an army of first-term Republicans almost seemed to relish the prospect, terrifying millions of voters in the process. The deal carefully crafted by congressional leaders bears their stamp.
In the coming fiscal year, spending will be reduced by only a modest $22 billion, a wise decision in light of the weak economy. But the deal provides for $2.5 trillion in cuts over a decade. Government agencies will be forced to rethink how they achieve their goals and to place a heavier emphasis on cost-effectiveness.
The deal will also force lawmakers of both parties to confront the exploding cost of health entitlements, the primary driver of welfare state expansion. Though tea party conservatives worship President Ronald Reagan as their hero, they’ve been willing to go much further than he ever did or could. And there is at least a slim chance that they will succeed in forcing a right-sizing of government.
By 1980, Ronald Reagan, a true believer in the conservative creed and a disciple of Goldwater, was elected president in the midst of an economic crisis not unlike our own. As president, Reagan championed conservative ideas at every opportunity.
In the decades since then, an extraordinary wave of entrepreneurship has helped make America, or at least part of it, richer, freer, and more dynamic.
To the left, this triumphant narrative looks much darker. Liberals point to the explosion in income and wealth inequality over the past 30 years and to the stagnation of incomes in the middle of the spectrum. They point to the electoral and organizational resources of conservatives, largely funded by the wealthy and powerful, as an almost insuperable obstacle to moving the country leftward. Viewed through this lens, the fact that the debt limit debate seems to have been resolved through a promise of deep spending cuts over the next decade is grist for the mill.
But the truth is that conservatives haven’t been winning for a long time. Ever since the New Deal era, Congress has had the freedom to regulate almost every aspect of national economic life, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers have not hesitated to take advantage. The president commands a vast array of bureaucracies devoted to shaping the way we work, travel, eat, exercise, and sleep, and the executive branch is increasingly seen as the guarantor of American prosperity.
There is a powerful built-in bias toward an expanding federal government, and conservative political victories have done very little to change that. As a result, the welfare state has been ascendant.
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development traces in the richest countries the growth in public social expenditures, including spending on insurance programs, education and tax breaks designed to achieve society’s goals.
In the United States, inflation-adjusted public social expenditures at the federal, state and local level increased more than 80 percent from 1990 to 2005. Inflation-adjusted GDP, in contrast, grew just more than 50 percent. That is, the welfare state grew much faster than the U.S. economy as a whole.
In the core economies of the European Union, which American conservatives so often deride as incorrigibly socialist, public social expenditures increased somewhat less over the same period.
This was an era of robust economic growth, when an increasing number of Americans were in a position to draw on their own resources to look after their health, education and retirement needs. In 1996, President Bill Clinton famously declared, “The era of big government is over.” Yet a close look at the numbers reveals that big government barely noticed. One could make the case that when the economy was growing at a healthy clip, we could afford a more generous welfare state.
But now, with the economy stagnant and long-term unemployment at dangerously high levels, the welfare state has had to swell in size. So good times are favorable for the growth of the welfare state — and bad times are good for the growth of the welfare state as well.
Despite the profound pessimism of liberals, who will never stop believing that their right-wing opponents are wily and effective, they’ve unknowingly found themselves in a can’t-lose position. The uncompromising stance of tea party conservatives in the debt ceiling debate has been all about changing this dynamic.
While Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell were willing to make significant concessions to avoid a default, an army of first-term Republicans almost seemed to relish the prospect, terrifying millions of voters in the process. The deal carefully crafted by congressional leaders bears their stamp.
In the coming fiscal year, spending will be reduced by only a modest $22 billion, a wise decision in light of the weak economy. But the deal provides for $2.5 trillion in cuts over a decade. Government agencies will be forced to rethink how they achieve their goals and to place a heavier emphasis on cost-effectiveness.
The deal will also force lawmakers of both parties to confront the exploding cost of health entitlements, the primary driver of welfare state expansion. Though tea party conservatives worship President Ronald Reagan as their hero, they’ve been willing to go much further than he ever did or could. And there is at least a slim chance that they will succeed in forcing a right-sizing of government.
