Program For Freedom
by John Toivonen

The Bush Administration is one more illustration of the fact that the most effective program for winning in politics is a mixture of entitlement socialism and social conservatism. While this reality may trouble conservatives, it is a fact that must be faced if we are to win the war for liberty.

Historically politicians have embraced entitlements and a respect for the existing social order in an attempt to gain or consolidate power. This program appeals to voters because it appeals to basic human nature. We would all like to have more material wealth, even if we did not earn it, and at the same time we are troubled by change. A politics created to suit these natural tendencies will always be a formidable force that will enjoy much success.

The victory of this political program concerns all of us who are truly on the right because individual liberty is at the core of our value system. While we favor traditional social arrangements, provided that they are not oppressive to any class of person, we know that social conservatism on its own is not enough to ensure a free and virtuous society. Only free men and women can be good stewards of a society. Remove liberty and we remove the very basis of responsibility.

In considering the way in which the above mentioned political program works we will consider three examples: Otto von Bismark, the Democratic Party of the 20th Century, and George W. Bush. Each of these actors has in varying ways embraced a politics that extended the welfare state while protecting the existing social order.

Bismark, the chancellor of Prussia and President of the German Confederation in the 1870's, introduced social security as a concession to the working class while simultaneously defending the monarchy and the aristocracy. While working class people did gain a government pension plan, there was no revolution in the arena of social values.

The Democratic Party dominated the political world of the United States for the overwhelming majority of the 20th Century. The party enjoyed legislative majorities on the federal and state levels that allowed it to set the course of policy in our nation. Democrats instituted social security, welfare for the underprivileged, promoted school construction and access to higher education. In each of these cases the recipients of the benefits did not earn them. Someone else had to be taxed to fund the programs.

While the Democrats expanded federal and state spending, they also respected the existing social order. Their respect for the social status quo extended even into the area of race relations. White Southern Democratic voters favored a governmental role in distributing entitlements so long as the government stayed away from activism on the existing racial order. When the Democratic Party moved towards changing the system of racial segregation the party lost much of its political support in the South.

Today our nation has a president who combines a program of entitlements and support for the existing social order. Not only has he done nothing to dismantle the programs of the New Deal, he has promoted an extension of entitlements by supporting a Medicare prescription drug bill. This bill was ruthlessly pushed through the House of Representatives by holding the voting open for a record length of time and by threatening political repercussions for Republican legislators who dared to oppose it. One might say that George Bush is the American Bismark of the 21st Century sans the calculating brilliance of the Prussian global chess master.

On the social front this President Bush has supported a kinder, gentler form of social conservatism. He supports a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, but takes no position on civil unions.

This political program is preferable to any of the various forms of left-wing politics. Given a choice between a mixture of entitlement socialism and social conservatism on one hand, and an even more comprehensive and expensive system of entitlement socialism matched with a radical social agenda we will opt for the former if only because it gives us time to marshal our forces.

While we need to challenge this program, we must realize that we are swimming upstream. As I metioned earlier this winning political program works so well because it appeals to basic human nature. People want material benefits, even if they are unearned, while at the same time people are reluctant to see change in the existing social fabric.

One crucial step is to find a presidential candidate for 2008 who understands the principles of limited government and has the political courage to fight for these principles. We do not want another well-meaning GOP man or woman who favors New Deal programs for the sake of political expediency. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been mentioned as a possibility for the Republican nomination. While she an intellectually brilliant and principled woman, I doubt that she is what we on the right are seeking. While electable, my suspicion is that she is a Bush-type Republican. If this is true, we must look elsewhere for a leader who embraces the principles of limited government. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney may be best candidate because he has managed to govern to the right in the most left-wing state on the eastern seaboard. He has not raised income taxes or sales taxes and managed to balance the budget by cutting waste. This budgetary success should recommend him to the voters on the right.

But we will have to start by holding elected Republicans accountable through primary challenges. As difficult a task as this may be, we must carefully monitor politically vulnerable legislators who favor entitlement socialism. Our efforts to uproot these rotten Republicans will anger GOP establishment men, but it must be done. We must show the Republican Party that for it to hold power they must uphold the principles of individualism and limited government. They must be reminded that this is truly the party of Senator Barry Goldwater, not the party of Governor Nelson Rockefeller.

But the first step towards achieving these changes is naming the enemy. Its name is socialism. Republican legislators have been wary of using the dreaded S word because they know that all too often they are complicitous in promoting taxpayer-funded social programs. On the Bush Medicaire bill only 25 brave Republicans stood with us.

Maybe our Republican legislators will have more courage with a strong constituent voice for limited government . We must utilize local, state and national organizations that are dedicated to the principles of limited government to put pressure on them to stand with us. We must have a clearly articulated political platform for them to read so that there can be no confusion on matters of principle. Only then can push the politics of our nation in the right direction.

Email the Editor