The January 2013  issue of Commentary asked 53 writers and conservative leaders What is the Future of Conservatism?

This is part of the response from Heather MacDonald:

Optimists will argue that conservatives simply need to sell their small-government, personal-responsibility message more vigorously. Pessimists will respond that conservatives have been making the case for the dynamism of markets and the inefficiency of government bureaucracies, but the message is just not finding many new buyers. The United States may be following an ironic law of economic development: The richer a country becomes, thanks to commerce, the less its tolerance for the risk that commerce inevitably entails. Since the United States can afford to devote an increasing share of its GDP to the government and to redistribution, without (yet) noticeably decreasing its astounding wealth, it will do so. (The avalanche of donated goods that poured forth after Hurricane Sandy was a reminder of this country’s seemingly bottomless material bounty.) The problem is not only that we are trading away a vibrant economy for a larger public sector, however, but that we are piling up massive amounts of debt to do so and encouraging more and more people to jump onto the benefits bandwagon.

HKO:

When you start out with nothing to lose, risk seems small.  When you have succeeded the risk is more pronounced. Yet without risk growth stops. Our challenge is to reduce the risk to the public sector while not stifling the risk in the private sector that we all benefit from.  When the private sector collapses from poor government policy or normal cyclical fluctuations the addiction to public benefits causes leaders to resort  to debt.  The solution may include tax increases, and it must include cost decreases, but it should also include incentives for strong economic growth.

print