Rush Week

I wanted to steer clear of commenting on Rush Limbaugh’s latest, if only because I don’t really pay attention to the man’s show and have no desire to involve myself in the emerging free-for-all. But a commenter at E.D. Kain’s place raised an interesting point: Limbaugh’s attacks on new policy ideas are driven by a genuine fear of ceding too much ground to the Left, as many conservative reformists are increasingly willing to accept some measure of centralized, state-oriented action.

There is an air of plausibility to this argument, and I admit there’s something attractive about the idea of battening down the hatches, weathering the current storm, and then emerging from below decks with the pure, unadulterated ideals of Republicanism still intact (whatever they may be). But there are a few obvious flaws to this line of thinking.

Freddie deBoer (among others) frequently argues that Republicans have trouble governing because they’re not equipped to govern. In other words, a movement that objects to the very existence of an Environmental Protection Agency or a Commerce Department isn’t well prepared to run the same organizations it spends so much time criticizing. Viewed in this context, Bush’s cronyism becomes understandable (if not excusable), because few Republican wonks were lining up to staff FEMA or the Department of Transportation in 2001.

Limited government, free market reform, decentralization – these can’t be wished into existence. They require some sort of blueprint for implementation. To take a simple hypothetical, say you want to abolish the Food and Drug Administration because you believe the market will do a better job of regulating product quality and safety. Leaving aside the validity of this claim, it’s worth remembering that there are still serious practical barriers to abolishing an entire federal department.

For example, the market may be unable to instantly regulate product quality after decades of federal supervision. The idea of independent consumer guides arising in place of the FDA is certainly plausible, but there’s probably going to be some lag between removing federal oversight and the development of self-regulating market mechanisms.

So what do you do? Do you appoint an interim oversight committee to sort things out? Do you gradually phase out the FDA’s regulatory duties? Or do you simply move on and accept the risk of disease, injury, and even death from defective products?

Of course, no one is proposing the immediate abolition of the FDA, but it’s easy to imagine similar pitfalls stymying other efforts at small-government reform. For all this talk of returning to Republican roots, it’s also worth remembering that conservatives and libertarians are not defending the status quo – and rightly so, because on many of the day’s major issues (healthcare comes to mind), the status quo sucks. Plausible small government policies don’t appear out of thin air, and criticizing new ideas is a surefire way to discourage any coherent alternative to technocratic liberalism from emerging.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Politics

6 responses to “Rush Week

  1. Alex

    Re: “In other words, a movement that objects to the very existence of an Environmental Protection Agency or a Commerce Department isn’t well prepared to run the same organizations it spends so much time criticizing.”

    Not to argue–because they do object now– but just for the record, both organizations were started by republicans. Nixon may have had different interests at heart, perhaps. But in addition to initiating the CD, Teddy definitely aided the formation of an FDA with the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. (I’m grateful even if it was an unintended consequence of Sinclair’s “The Jungle” ).

  2. Right, and my example was purely hypothetical. I just think it’s a useful stand-in for other conservative programs.

  3. MD

    Regarding:

    Leaving aside the validity of this claim, it’s worth remembering that there are still serious practical barriers to abolishing an entire federal department.

    For example, the market may be unable to instantly regulate product quality after decades of federal supervision. The idea of independent consumer guides arising in place of the FDA is certainly plausible, but there’s probably going to be some lag between removing federal oversight and the development of self-regulating market mechanisms.

    You might think product regulation is happening just because a central agency exists, but you should reevaluate your conclusion. For example, have you read _Omnivore’s Dilemma_, by Michael Pollan? The amount of food that doesn’t get regulated, checked, verified, etc, boggles the mind. The federal government can never do this kind of oversight. This “oversight” in name only relies primarily on cooperation with individual food producers and food distributors. In other words, it’s at the decentralized levels that this “federal oversight” in name only occurs, but it is not actually federal anything.

    I personally would prefer states, cities, consumer associations and organizations, and all sorts of spontaneous non-federal civic associations spring up to “replace” the hundreds of federal “oversight” agencies that can never actually do their job. It would be better, more efficient, and most importantly, more adaptable to evolving knowledge, science, and consumer desires than the ineffective monstrosity we have now.

  4. Alex

    MD: transferring the power of oversight from one overarching monster to state/city government (its many heads, if you will) sounds like an exercise in superfluousness; it would be more efficient to improve the model we have, because we’ve (you’ve) already done the work of identifying the main problems.

  5. I’m largely in agreement with you, MD. I just think that eliminating the FDA is little more than wishful thinking without some sort of coherent policy blueprint.

  6. MD

    Glad we are in agreement, Will. I just think insisting on a “coherent policy blueprint” at this stage puts the cart before the horse. That conservatism, and America, needs to find the right horse was one of Limbaugh’s main themes in his CPAC speech. Limbaugh’s role is not to do the details of policy, and thus he critiques those that do; it is to garner momentum for conservative principles in their every-day, non-academic form. Big rocks have to be moved before the small rocks and pebbles of “policy” will even have a chance to see the light of day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s