Why does government always grow and conservatives always seem to lose?

The wild modern depiction of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in the musical, “Hamilton,” is not as far off as you might imagine.

The Woodlands, July 5 – Government always seems to grow. Conservatives always seem to lose.

To be “conservative,” according to Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, meant to be someone who believes government should be smaller and spend less money. Of course, the word “conservative” has been usurped by New Deal democrats, such as Craig Doyal and B. Hussein Obama, who claim that growth in the size and tax dollar spending of government somehow reflects conservative values. It doesn’t, Mr. Doyal and Mr. Obama. That’s called “modern liberalism.”

Nevertheless, conservatives always seem to lose the fight against bigger and bigger government. One of the most frustrating days during the past 50 years was January 1, 1995, when the Republicans who had fought against bigger government for 40 years in the United States House of Representative all of a sudden came into the majority. What did they do? They started to pass bigger and bigger appropriations bills. When the Republican Party began to lose its core fiscal conservatism, it lost its ideological rudder altogether.

The reason conservatives always seem to lose the fight against bigger and bigger government comes down to two reasons. First, ever since a guy named Alexander Hamilton was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Big Government has aligned itself with Big Businesses. Look at who the biggest financial supporters are of Montgomery County Judge Craig Doyal: some of the largest companies that conduct business in the county, such as Dannenbaum Engineering, Halff Associates, large general contractors, and large national land developers. Those companies work closely with people such as Craig Doyal, who seek to confiscate tax dollars from regular citizens as rapidly as possible, in order to grant favors to those big companies. As we see at the Montgomery County Airport, at the Tx-249 Taxway, at the new road development in Commissioner Precincts 1 and 2, and in the choice of County vendors, the Montgomery County government works for those big companies, even though most of them are from outside of the geographic limits of Montgomery County. If LJA’s Jeff Cannon or Halff’s Bobby Adams picks up the telephone to call Craig Doyal, they’ll get him on the other line. Doyal is not nearly as responsive to real citizens of this community. Just notice Doyal’s behavior in the Commissioner Court. He banters with engineers such as Halff’s James Baker or County vendor and attorney Rich Muller. But Doyal sits with a “deer in the headlights” stare when a real citizen of Montgomery County comes to speak to the Commissioners Court.

Second, the fundamental philosophy of conservatism is difficult to accept. As Precinct 3 Commissioner James Noack recently explained, “conservatives believe that economic development should occur naturally, while liberals want the government to direct economic development.” Noack was precisely correct. It’s also the reason people have a difficult time with the concept of conservatism, however. If Craig Doyal wants something to happen, he’ll just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make it happen. He doesn’t want to wait around to see if the “invisible hand” of a “free market economy” makes life better. Read history and you’ll see that leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky rejected the concept of free markets in favor of “command and control” economics.

Let’s face reality. The “command and control” concept of Craig Doyal and Precinct 2 County Commissioner Charlie Riley is a lot easier to understand than the subtlety of the concept of permitting “market forces” to determine the direction of economic growth. Besides, when the massive contributions of Big Business are waiting closely in the wings ready to pour money into their pockets in order to spur the government to take actions to benefit their Big Business, it’s awfully difficult for a philosopher to argue for Adam Smith’s “invisible hand.” To Craig and Charlie, that’s laughable.

 

Comments

comments

You must be logged in to post a comment Login