Conservative Home International

« Eastern Europe wins concessions from Sarkozy on coal-fired power stations | Main | Is Poland the EU's 'new Britain' (or the 'new Ireland')? »

US Republicans debate their attitude to size and scope of government

US Republicans - or, perhaps, I should be writing US conservatives - have been debating their attitude to the size and scope of government.

Bill Kristol kicked things off in his weekly New York Times column.  He argued that recent Republican Presidents hadn't succeeded in delivering small government and he notes that Jeb Bush - now openly considering a run for the US Senate - may be billing himself as a small government conservative but his record as Florida's Governor was mixed:


Ross Douthat - at - would like readers to think of small government conservatism as more of an attitude than a pure position and he contends that the attitude hasn't done too badly:


As ConservativeHome reflected on the debate there seem to be three obvious learnings:

(1) Don't talk too abstractly

That's certainly Yuval Levin's view: "Small government is not an end in itself but a means to the ends conservatives pursue: economic freedom, prosperity, a thriving culture, strong families, and a secure America, among others. Why not make those the primary terms of the arguments we make."

(2) It's not always sensible to change the topic


(3) If government has to grow, let's ensure it grows in the Right way

Emil W Henry calls on conservatives to accept that America's infrastructure needs to be renewed but urges the renewal process to be prosecuted in a conservative way: "Conservatives know that the private sector is better than the government at designing, building, operating and financing infrastructure. This, combined with the magnitude of the spending required, means government will have to tap private capital and expertise. Conservatives can supply leadership in private-sector participation, encourage public-private partnerships, and help ensure that central planning and prioritization are rooted in clinical cost-benefit analysis, not politics."

