Old Conservatives at The Heritage Foundation?
The Heritage Foundation, a public policy think tank in Washington D.C., has released a new book called Getting America Right. The book focuses on the conservative government principles that many feel the Republican party (or, at least, the Bush White House and some members of Congress) has abandoned.
The foreword, written by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, gives a good flavor of what’s in the book. For example:
…Getting America Right examines every government action or policy through a unique prism of six questions:
• “Is it the government’s business?†Washington, the authors say, should do only those things that cannot be handled better by a state, a community, or an individual.
• “Does this measure promote self-reliance?†Too many government programs punish individual initiative and condemn their clients to “ permanent dependency.â€
• “Is it responsible?†Getting America Right suggests several ways to reintroduce responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility, in Washington.
• “Does it make us more prosperous?†The authors argue that because of excessive government regulation, too high taxes, and trade barriers, America is losing the economic freedom that is the wellspring of our national prosperity.
• “Does it make us safer?†Getting America Right insists, and I agree, that there must be a seriousness in Washington about the perils we face at home and abroad and a commitment to the kind of strength, courage, and resolution exhibited by Ronald Reagan in leading us to victory in the cold war.
• “Does it unify us?†Government, say the authors, should serve to bind us together, not to exaggerate our differences and divide us. After all, our national motto is E pluribus unum, not E pluribus pluribus.
The foreword can be downloaded here, and there is a Getting America Right website here. For anyone interested in the debate within the Republican party, I recommend checking this out. Heritage came to prominence with Ronald Reagan, one of the last notable Republicans to steadfastly refuse to accept the principle that the federal government should try to do more for individuals.
If there are any “Reagan Republicans†left, they’re likely part of the Republican Study Committee. For a look at what they are proposing, see this piece by Heritage’s Brian Riedl.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Although the issues raised in Getting America Right do, of course, apply to the entire country, they certainly hit quite close to my hometown near New Orleans. Fortunately, my entire parish of St. Charles was spared by a mere few miles from the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. It has now become even more prosperous, serving as a haven for those less fortunate. In lieu of my personal experience over these past 7 months since this disaster, the 6 questions posed by Feulner and Wilson are very relevant ones. Although individual states, communities and citizens should be permitted and encouraged to handle routine business, the federal government must, at times, make it their business. The ball, in the case of Katrina, was dropped by FEMA. A national disaster needs the federal government to support states, communities, and individuals who cannot handle emergency situations of such magnitude. Truly, self-reliance can only be promoted if individuals are able to help themselves. Katrina wiped entire cities off the map. This is a far cry from enabling citizens to become “permanently dependent†on federal assistance. On the other hand, people who are able to work and provide for themselves but not willing to do so should not be given government aid.
Fiscal responsibility and accountability in how our tax dollars are spent by the federal government is crucial. Initially, federal tax money should be wisely spent on our nation’s own needs. We can help other countries, such as Iraq, by first taking care of our own. Prosperity comes through planning and protecting; trade should certainly continue, but with caution. Keeping America safe will enhance prosperity and security for our citizens. Unfortunately, 9/11 and Katrina survivors probably feel anything but prosperous and secure.
President Reagan’s philosophy in refusing to allow the federal government to try to do more for individuals is only partially correct. Certainly helping those who can help themselves does not promote unity; it causes anger and resentment by hard-working, tax-paying citizens who feel others are getting a free ride. However, helping those in true, dire need is quite a different scenario. It makes one really wonder – what would Ronald Reagan have done had he been president during these recent years?