For kristne, for hvide, for gamle

Jeg har i dag en artikel i Weekendavisen om Det Republikanske Partis problemer med at finde en passende leder. Artiklen kan ikke læses online (endnu?), men kan læses som e-avis, hvis man følger linket på denne side. Update: Det er så vidt jeg kan se ikke længere muligt at downloade artiklen som e-avis, uden at betale et gebyr. Hvis du er interesseret i at læse (en tidligere udgave af) artiklen, så send mig en e-mail på lars.hvidberg [at] gmail.com

Der hører en lille historie med: Oprindeligt var artiklen skrevet ud fra en reportage fra den store CPAC-konference i slutningen af februar. Det er en årlig, traditionsrig konference – startet af Ronald Reagan i 1973 – hvor konservative aktivister fra hele landet mødes og udveksler ideer og pepper hinanden op til at tryne socialisterne og de gudløse. Weekendavisen tog min oprindelige artikel, men den røg alligevel ud i sidste øjeblik. Det var ærgerligt, og jeg måtte ugen efter skrive artiklen om, fordi CPAC var ved at være old news. Der røg et par sjove detaljer, men artiklen blev egentlig nok mere interessant af omskrivningen.

Overskrift og kolofon er ikke mit valg, og der er også ændret småting i artiklen, mest for at gøre nogle af forholdene mere forståelige. Jeg synes, at alle ændringer har hjulpet med til at gøre artiklen bedre. Oprindeligt var titlen “I Reagans Skygge”, men den nuværende er mere catchy.

Mere læsning: Reason om Small Tent Conservatism.

Hypocritical republicans

The Republicans are all about “Small Government” these days, but doesn’t their new-found chasity feel kind of hollow? Considering the Bush-year’s gigantic budgets and expansion of executive power, it sees a little late to find your libertarian roots.

Here’s a historian who thinks so, Julian E. Zelizer:

After the past eight years in American politics, it is impossible to reconcile current promises by conservatives for small government with the historical record of President Bush’s administration. Most experts on the left and right can find one issue upon which to agree: The federal government expanded significantly after 2001 when George W. Bush was in the White House.

The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy — such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies — the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

(…)

There were some areas where Bush backed off government cuts because programs were too popular, like Social Security. In other areas, like federal education policy and prescription drug benefits, the president seemed enthusiastic about bigger government.

Bush and Cheney also embraced a vision of presidential power that revolved around a largely unregulated and centralized executive branch with massive authority over the citizenry. This was a far cry from the days of Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, a Republican who constantly warned about the dangers of presidential power to America’s liberties.

The same goes for presidents like Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush Sr. and even Ronald Reagan. Is the on-march of government just impossible to stop – does it have it’s own inertia – or don’t politicians really mean it when they say they want lesser government?