A Thatcherite Republican?

Following on from the post below, it was interesting to read some of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn's remarks today:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Congress’s deficit spending has become a moral issue surpassing abortion because it saddles future generations with massive debt before they’re born.

“The greatest moral issue of our time isn’t abortion, it’s robbing our next generation of opportunity,” Coburn told reporters at a breakfast meeting Thursday at the National Press Club. “You’re going to save a child from being aborted so they can be born into a debtor’s prison?”

Senator Coburn also questioned Congress' legitimacy owing to its abysmal 11 percent approval rating and explained why he was holding up some 200 pieces of legislation.

This concentration on economic issues above all, while still maintaining a conservative stance on social policy, should be recognizable to British readers as the Thatcherite stance.  It has certainly raised eyebrows here in the States, but it might just be the way for Republicans to reinvigorate themselves.  The divides over social policy and national security identified below are indeed important, but the relative insignificance of the old-fashioned big government liberal candidates in the Democrat field and the disquiet with Republican performance on spending in the GOP field suggest that spending and the deficit could be fruitful ground for policy-makers in the near future.  To that degree at least, British and American politics might be converging again.

-- Iain Murray

Comments

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Its quite a sensible position. They Conservative lot can faff about all they want when the Republicans are in a strong position but its really rather unwise right now. Then again some of them are stupid enough to believe that Hilary or worse Obama presidency is better than say Guiliani or Thompson.

[Moral minority]

Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. The Bush administration is a big government, liberal imperialist monstrosity. Guiliani will carry on its agenda. Only Ron Paul can lead the GOP back to its non-interventionist, limited government roots.

[Maduka]

What America needs is pragmatic politicians and not ideologues.

There is no way a nation with $9 trillion of debt, two wars ($576 billion in Iraq alone and counting) and a negative savings rate will dig itself out of this hole without some form of tax hikes.

During the Second World War, Great Britain borrowed heavily from the United States - the last payment was effected last year. We are borrowing heavily from China and Japan - what are the future implications?

[Maduka]

Moral Minority,

Does conservative only mean pro-small government? Religious conservatives are not necessarily pro-small government. Judeo-Christian tradition is very orientated towards helping the poor.

There is a space in Judeo-Christian tradition for both personal alms giving and government responsibility:

He (the King) will *defend the poor people and save the children of those that are in need.He will destroy *cruel people (Psalm 72 verse 4).

This is what Mike Gerson had to say:
A significant portion of the Republican Party and the American public is influenced more by the social teachings of the Jewish and Christian traditions than by the doctrines of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Religious conservatives, broadly defined, prefer free-market methods. But they believe that the goal directing all our methods must be the common good.

And then again:
But the moral stakes are even higher. What does a narrow, anti-government conservatism have to offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and intact families are rare? Very little.

[kfreedom]

Gerson and his ilk were welcomed into the "big tent" because they recognized that we ARE spending zillions on humanitarian causes already, domestically and abroad, and we might as well divert as much of that as possible to causes that work. That's why some of us could get behind his ideas on global AIDS, prisoner rehab, etc. However, the old testament references are inappropriate - the Israelites were a religiously homogenous theocracy, with divinely appointed leaders who were supposed to represent and obey God in His governance of the people. They openly sought direction - militarily, socially, and economically from God. Therefore, when God said, "give to the poor," the government was able to do so on everyone's behalf. We have a different form of government. We who believe in that same God have absolutely NO room for stinginess- we are equally under the command to give to the poor. But our secular government can not coerce charitable giving out of a diverse group of believers, non-believers, and so forth. That is the difference between socialism in a theocracy and capitalism in a secular government peopled by many believers. Our modern governments must get out of our way so that the believing people are free to obey God's commands of charity of their own will.

[Matt P. Dz.]

Maduka - helping the poor is a wonderful objective - as long as it's done from a good will by the good hearted individuals, rather than by the cold bureaucracy taking the money from the taxpayers.

There's nothing to be proud of when one steals the money to supposedly "help" the others; more often than not, the politicians appropriate this "aid" to the organizations lobbying for them anyway. Government doesn't work - freedom works - that's why we don't trust the government to take over the private sector and switch to the Soviet-style central planning. As in all of the other sectors, private charity simply works better and helps those who are truly needy - not those who can afford the best lobbyists.

There's nothing conservative about liberal tax-and-spend big government. Belief in personal responsibility and private entrepreneurship are the values underlying the conservative thought - and their absence from the socialist agenda is often used to "justify" the government intervention. Conservatism is irreconcilable with socialism for a reason.

There's nothing Christian about breaking the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not steal," even by majority vote. Jesus Christ has never said "take from your neighbor" - even to "help the poor", as many politicians tend to do. On the other hand, Our Lord has mentioned helping the poor with your own money quite a lot...