Charles Krauthammer has come to my rescue. You see, I’ve been on the receiving end of some spirited reaction since asserting in last weekend’s column that what we commonly call the…..GOP leadership — “is more sympathetic to Obama’s case for the welfare state than to the Tea Party’s case for limited government and individual liberty.” The statement may have been provocative in the sense of expressing a truth that people on the political Right prefer not to talk about.……Stewart claimed that conservatives are anti-government. Initially, Krauthammer appeared to reject this caricature, replying, “The conservative idea is not that government has no role.” But, alas, when he got around to what the proper role of government is, Krauthammer sounded more like Stewart than Buckley.
To begin with, he largely buys
the caricature. It would have been credible, he told Stewart, to have argued
that conservatives were anti-government “in the Thirties, when conservatives
opposed the New Deal.”
That’s just wrong.
Conservatives who opposed the New Deal were not anti-government. They believed,
as they believe today, in constitutionally defined, limited government. And
“limited” does not mean “small” — where the Constitution assigns the central
government an authority, such as national security, it must be as big and
strong as necessary to execute that authority…… The welfare state is a betrayal of our
constitutional traditions: It is redistributionist gluttony run amok,
impoverishing future generations to satisfy our insatiable contemporaries.….To Read More…..
No comments:
Post a Comment