Big is the New Small

by Jer

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away." - Barry Goldwater

In high school, I went through one of those 'sowing my wild oats' periods. That's code for 'I partied my ass off.'

Yes, I drank like a fish. Mostly cheap beer. There was a guy at a local gas station we identified as "The Hippie" due to his long, unmanaged hair and unwillingness to shave. He would have sold booze to the prepubescent version of Macaulay Culkin from the Home Alone movies. Never carded us. We loved him for it.

Unfortunately for my friends and me, we rarely knew when to stop. Often, we would drink ourselves into confusion and drunken disorderliness. To our credit, we always assigned a designated driver - or 'Double-D' - to play goal keeper each Friday and Saturday night.

During one particular escapade, we made our weekly visit to 'The Hippie' and then proceeded to a party at the home of some kid from another school. After a fair amount of drinking and otherwise raucous behavior, I decided to take a break and relax on a couch. I have no idea how much time elapsed before I decided to pull myself up and find my friends.

Where is everybody? I don't recognized a single face at this party. What did I miss? How did I get here? Is that girl puking in her purse?

I made my way out to the street only to find that the car we came in was no longer there.

Those a**holes left without me! (Keep in mind, this was before the era of the cellphone.)

Thank goodness for the Double-D that night, because he didn't get too far before he realized that he was short one drunken idiot.

As an adult - a term I use loosely - I once again find myself looking around wondering, "What did I miss? How did I get here?" Only this time, I'm in a very different arena and after all is said and done, I may need a drink again.

I'm speaking of conservative, American politics. Not exactly as sexy of a topic as me drinking myself into a stupor, but stick with me.

Studying US Government in Social Studies class, I remember the simplified distinction between conservatives and liberals centering around their ideology as it relates to power and control. Conservatives, traditionally, believed that small, limited government was a good thing and liberals sought to tip the balance or power away from the state and towards the Fed.

Pretty straight forward, even for a simpleton like me, right?

Wrong.

George W. Bush has long since been demonstrating a disdain for economic conservatism and the belief in limited government. This we know. What I didn't come to fully realize - bully for you if you did - that the conservative movement in this country has long since been showing signs of a similar disdain. It was a recent comment on MSNBC by author and one-time Nixon lawyer, John Dean, that served as my 'ah ha' moment (or 'uh-oh', depending on your perspective):

When I first got interested in conservatism, the presidency was viewed as something that was dangerous when it was strong. A decade later, when Nixon came in, it started to swing. Then with Reagan, Bush, and Bush, it has now gone 180 degrees, where the conservative canon calls for a strong president.

Maybe I should call my old Social Studies teacher and make sure they've ordered new books.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Dick Armey, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut every-so-often. Of big government he says, "[It] violates [our] rights by meddling in our lives, misusing our hard-earned money, and dictating cultural norms to us." If this is the existing modus operandi of liberals and the "new" one of conservatives, what options are left for those of us who think very little of big?

Before I start coming off like an alarmist, I concede that none of what I'm saying here has any basis beyond the anecdotal. These are all based on observations I've made from various media outlets. However, I'm found of saying, "Where there's smoke, there's global warming" and there are enough conservative leaders outside of Washington DC defending the Bush administration to warrant these concerns; which is not to suggest there hasn't been ample reason to be concerned before this point.

Lastly, one other comment made by John Dean has me on edge - this time from an article he wrote for findlaw.com:

... the 2006 mid-term election was not a mandate in favor of Democrats. Rather, it was a mandate against Republicans. It's also a mandate the Republic party is likely to learn from, and respond to, as the Republican Party has historically been very good at learning from its mistakes, recalibrating, and returning stronger than ever. Moreover, nothing that occurred during the 2006 election has dramatically changed the efforts of Republicans to make themselves the permanent ruling party.

The permanent ruling party?

Where's 'The Hippie' when I need him?