He was, after all, planning an expansion of government services at the very moment he spoke the words. But whatever one thinks of Clinton and his motives, it looks as if the times have changed. It now looks as if the era of small government is over.
Why do I say that? Well, we have seen George Bush joins hands with Ted Kennedy to push through the stimulus package and a panoply of federal initiatives that are more in the spirit of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs than anything reminiscent of Barry Goldwater’s platform.
More to the point, Bush gets little heat from the right for his stance. Indeed, many conservative gurus praise him for stealing the Democrat’s thunder and for inoculating himself from Democratic attacks during his next run for the presidency. I can’t remember the last time I heard a prominent Catholic commentator warning of the dangers of big government in the name of the papal principle of subsidiarity.
Candidates for public office are worse. They routinely strain to assure the voters that they will be advocates for federal activism on behalf of the poor, children and the environment, to be on the side of those who propose to “do something” about these issues, rather than shrinking the government’s role in our lives.
It is not hard to see why. Other than rightwing activists, there seem to be few voters who are receptive to a candidate who proposes to “do less” when he gets to Washington. You can predict how his political opponents would hit him: “You mean you want us to pay you to go to Washington to ignore our problems?”
But didn’t Ronald Reagan sell the notions of States’ rights and economic individualism to the voters? He did. But it seems as if we have reached a point where a consensus of the American people yearns for a “nanny state” that will reduce the economic uncertainties in their lives. Why? Blame the baby boomers.
Someone called the baby boomers the pig in the python, because of the way they have altered society at each stage of their lives, especially the popular demand for government services. Massive expenses in school construction – for elementary schools first, then secondary schools, then colleges – were required during their growing years. The call for day care centers and Head Start programs went out as the boomers reached childbearing age, then for more generous IRAs as they began to contemplate retirement. One need not have access to sophisticated polling data to see what will happen as they reach old age, a day fast arriving.
They will demand prescription drug coverage under Medicare, as well as subsidies for their nursing home expenses. Nowadays these programs are a hard sell because of the tax increases they require; that is, because the baby boomers are the taxpayers who will have to pay the freight for the current generation of elderly. In a few short years, when the boomers are the retired elderly and the recipients of taxpayer dollars, the tables will be turned. Elderly boomers will become a powerful and active voting bloc in pursuit of what they will perceive as an entitlement for all their years of working and paying taxes.
So is all lost? Has the conservative movement come up a cropper on this issue? Well, yes and no. We must keep in mind what it was about the regulatory power of the central government that conservatives and proponents of the Catholic priniciple of subsidiarity found threatening. It was not that anyone thought that federal politicians and bureaucrats were somehow inherently less virtuous and trustworthy than local public servants. After all, most local politicians aspire to positions in Washington, D.C.
No, the reason for keeping a check on federal power was the likelihood that the federal government would be too distant from the voters and difficult to keep under control, and that local and state governments would be more responsive to the popular will. It is this proposition that I now question.
Because of the growth of media coverage of the national political scene, I now find that I have more knowledge of what is going on in Washington than in my local community. I have lived only for about two years in the town in Connecticut that is now my home, but I still find it surprising that I wouldn’t know the mayor or the town council members if I tripped over their feet in one of the local diners. I read the local newspapers, but the disputes about school bonds and corrupt policemen seem distant to me, especially in comparison to the national issues that get hammered nightly on shows like Hardball and The O’Reilly Factor and on the Sunday morning shows such as Meet the Press.
In addition, it now seems to me that national groups—the National Rifle Association, labor unions, pro- and anti-abortion groups, for example—are able to put pressure on Washington politicians far more effectively than local citizens can monitor what is going on at City Hall or at the local Board of Education. One hand still washes the other in those venues. Bill Clinton got away with a lot more in Arkansas than he did while president.
If my perception in this matter is correct, and shared by the American people in general, it means that the central reason for not allocating problem-solving responsibilities to the federal government, from the point of view of the old conservative movement, has lost much of its vigor. Maybe we can live with a larger federal government – one active in educational, medical and the needs of the elderly—than we once thought acceptable.
Am I sure of that? No. But even if I am wrong, it looks as if the baby boomers are going to give us a federal government more intrusive in our lives than ever before. So our task will be to prevent the expanded national government from adopting policies, especially in educational and medical matters, that threaten our civil liberties and traditional values. That may be a big job, but is it really that much more daunting a challenge than making sure that the school board president does not give too many construction projects to his brother-in-law? I hesitate to say it, but I don’t think so; not any more.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at Jkfitz42@cs.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
