From The Wall Street Journal:
“Republicans are bragging that by giving seniors a vast new entitlement they will sweep to victory in 2004. But the price of that “victory” has those of us who believe in limited government wondering what difference there is between the two parties.” (December 1, 2003)
I’ll tell you what the difference between the two parties is: Unlike today’s Democrats, the Republicans are actually successful at expanding the welfare state. The Democrats are not so successful, because it’s only when they are out of power that Republicans ever offer anything akin to principled opposition to the welfare-regulatory state. Once in power, Republicans feel guilty and proceed to give the Democrats most of what they have demanded, only sending Democrats into a blind rage for taking away their issues.
Consider all the Republicans have enacted since 2001, the year President Bush took office: the historic increases in spending, the campaign finance “reform” law, massive increases in federal control and financing of public schools and, most recently, the government takeover of the prescription drug industry for seniors. President Clinton never dared hope for any of these from either a Democratic or Republican Congress. When it comes to liberal social welfare spending policies, Republicans deliver.
My conclusion will surprise those of you who think I favor Republicans more than Democrats: What we apparently need are more Democrats. The welfare state is going to expand either way. Why not have it happen on the Democrats’ watch? And why not have the full force of socialism hit when their ideology can get the blame, instead of the ideology of the free market (which Republicans only pretend to advocate)? Not to mention the fact that when Republicans are out of power, fewer Democratic proposals get passed. With Democrats in power, we might get expansions in the welfare-regulatory state; with Republicans in power we will get expansions in the welfare-regulatory state.
If you can’t stomach voting for Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton next year, I’ll understand. Just think twice before you bother to vote for President Bush. Staying home on Election Day next year just might send the most principled message of all.
Editor’s Note: In other words, the best we can hope for is gridlock.
