« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

When will Erick Erickson offer a definition of “statist” or “big government”?

By: A_Texan (Diary)  |  January 9th, 2012 at 10:03 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

He has made it his passion in the past week to use his significant bullhorn to attack Rick Santorum on this basis.  This morning he has decided that enough people haven’t heard it, so he repeats it, even (accidentally–3 times?) on the frontpage.

When he accuses him of the charge, and those who defend him of disingenousness, he has conspicuously failed to offer anything like a working definition of “statist” or “big government.”  Such a definition would at least allow us to confirm or deny his accusation.  You have to give us enough information to have that ingenuity by which we can be disingenuous.

And by the way, your efforts right now seem perfectly calibrated to ensure that Romney wins his third straight primary/caucus in South Carolina.   If so, then just say ROMNEY 2012! and be done with it.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • explodinghead

    http://www.redstate.com/constitutional/2012/01/09/sopatorum-santorum-supports-sopa-2/

    Statism: the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.

    SOPA could end up putting control of our internet free speech rights in the hands of the government.

    I’m tired of people who think they know better how I should live, whether those folks are on the left or the right. I just want to be left alone.

    • A_Texan

      How, then, do I know which of our non-totalitarian, non-anarchist candidates crosses the magical line into statism, and more specifically, how do Romney and Santorum fall on one side, but Perry, Gingrich(?) and Paul CLEARLY fall on the other?

      Moreover, is there ANYONE who defines himself or herself as a “statist”? Seems to me more like a libertarian sneer, rather than any coherent ideology.

      I think I know how Ron Paul would define it, because he is a consistent, ideological libertarian, whom I do not support for precisely that reason.

      • JSobieski

        If it captures Santorum, then it captures so much of DC that the term is really helpful.

        • jakeofalltrades

          He believes in legislating morality to a strong degree relative to the baseline American.

          • jakeofalltrades

            If I were to think for myself, I’d say he’s a “compassionate conservative”.

          • westcoastpatriette

            No comment

          • JSobieski

            Being in favor of the nanny state isn’t a good thing, but there is an important line of demarcation between supporting the nanny state and being a statist.

            Frankly, I am surprised that the same site that predominantly ragged on Mitch Daniels is predominantly against his reverse image.

            Of course, Mitch Daniels actually had a great pro-life social issue resume. It was far better than Santorum’s spending bonafides.

          • A_Texan

            NT

          • acat

            (null)

          • lineholder

            is pretty close to useless in this context.

            Rick Santorum is a social conservative, but he is not a fiscal conservative. He’s a fiscal moderate (at best, leaning left in some case). He would not limit the size or scope of government…he would expand it, and do so under the guise of promoting social Conservatism.

            If you look at the position of candidates along a spectrum, i.e., most fiscally Conservative to least fiscally Conservative, where would you place Santorum?

          • A_Texan

            For all these candidates, you gotta distinguish record from current position. Lots of folks dropped the ball in the late 90s and early 00s. Our concern is how they’ll operate in office: And I’d place them in the following order, in declining order of fiscal conservative willpower circa 2013:
            1. Bachmann (I’m with Mark Steyn on this).
            2. Perry
            3. Santorum
            4. Gingrich
            5. Huntsman
            6. Romney (I don’t trust him at all).

  • A_Texan

    that clearly includes Santorum but excludes Perry, who are my top two candidates (or least bad of the alternatives). For some reason much of this site is convinced that Perry is “true,” but Santorum is not.

    They have offered a litany of allegedly bad votes by Santorum. I’m sure there’s alot out there, some of it hard to defend.

    And the same is true of Perry.

    You don’t become a successful office over a broad constituency with Paulesque purity.

    • JSobieski

      I do however think that Perry is more dedicated to the propositions of limited government and individual liberty as the focus of government than Santorum is.

      • A_Texan

        No text.

      • acat

        You assert that Santorum is not a “statist”, but rather a “nanny-statist”.

        I’m less concerned with whether Santorum’s big-government tendencies have, thus far, crossed into “hard statism” but with which direction those tendencies run. The role of POTUS is a good deal less restrictive than that of Senator, eh?

        Mew

        • JSobieski

          It leads to “Only X can save us” or all sorts of conspiracy theories, like Palin’s busband endorsing Newt because of Sarah’s “masters” at Fox.

          The only way to combat the high emotional pitch is to used measured language. So why use “statist” if “nanny-state tendencies” is both more accurate and less inflamatory?

          Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so almost everyone everyone is a potential statist but for the circumstances which keep them within the guard rails of good behavior.

          • acat

            we have motive but not opportunity in this case.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Give someone the power of superman and see how they turn out.

            Give someone the athletic talent of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan and see how good of a husband they turn out to be.

            Santorum was great on taxes. and average on spending for an R Senator during his time in the Senate. He wasn’t drunken sailor any more than anyone else. I am also hearing that he actually at least gave lip service to entitlement reform when others wouldn’t even do that.

            Santorum wasn’t the solution to spending when he was there, but he wasn’t the source of the problem either.

          • acat

            as I don’t view spending as the sole mark of the statist. I’m also looking at his proposed national service bit, I’m disturbed by his decision to jump into the Schaivo matter, and I’d need a good bit more clarity as to how he plans to govern vs. his religious views.

            I don’t think he’d be the worst possible candidate, but .. I think he’d have a much more pitched battle in the general, and I don’t have much confidence that he’d be worth the effort.

            Is he a statist? Maybe. He hasn’t had the opportunity to prove it yet, by your standards. I’d prefer, given the other people in the race, not to offer the opportunity to him.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            So I put that into the category of “dorm room discussion”.

            I don’t hold the Schiavo thing against him. That was an absolute mess.

            Under Article 2 of the UCC, a contract to buy a product worth $500 requires a writing to be enforceable.

            Schiavo’s husband (a man who had since moved on) got her plug pulled on the sole basis of his oral testimony.

          • acat

            IMO, he did not help the situation, and he did not help his own image outside the religious conservative community – and they already liked him. I view it as either poor judgement or grandstanding.

            I’m aware Santorum never put his more statist words into legal proposals, but .. the dorm room conversations do tell us something about which way he’s wired…

            I don’t trust his judgement. Your mileage may vary.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            In terms of dorm room stuff, I have for exampled dabled in more extreme forms (some would call them strict constructionist) of libertarianism, arguing against entitlements, against the Civil Rights Act, etc.

            I would never act on any of it—but I enjoy the thought experiments.

            You have every right to not trust his judgment. I am merely trying to pull people back on the chance that he becomes the nominee.

          • acat

            While you’re trying to pull some of us back, you’re providing encouragement to others who really shouldn’t receive any…

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            it is a good intellectual exercise for a lawyer.

            People who declare themselves strict constructionists should ask themselves how they would justify everything.

            SS
            Space program
            Civil Rights Acts
            FDA
            NPR
            EPA
            Educational data for K-12
            FDIC
            Foreign Aid

            I remember when Michigan passed a helmet requirement for riding a motorcycle. I was totally livid about it even though I would never ride a bike without one.

            I don’t smoke, but I argued with smokers about the anti-smoking laws as well.

            The reason why I consider myself ultimately neither libertarian nor a strictly enumerated powers guy is that I think ultimately that government is just a way for people to collaborate on how they want things done. Its kind of coordination tool. It makes no sense to force the creation of artificatial government structures to do things when you already have a structure ready for use.

            That said, I do like the idea of more state compacts.

          • acat

            I view government as a necessary evil at best, because humans have proven unable to live together peacefully without some structure …

            I’m not an anarchist, but I do favor a government as small and lightweight – both in dollar cost and in impact on our lives – as possible.

            I don’t see a justification in the constitution for any of the things you’ve listed, although I do see how several could be argued as “promoting the Common Good”… which is how they were sold.

            Education standards, for instance, used to be established by local boards and aggregated by the State. I don’t see a problem with a common reporting method, should all States agree upon one, but .. the bureaucracy to support such aggregation should be likewise paid by the States, not by D.C.

            We’re a long way from there, though; it’s taken us a century of progressives to get here, it’s likely to take more than a generation of conservatives to untangle the mess… even more if we keep confusing religious-right statists* for conservatives.

            Mew

            * nanny-statist and hard-statist both derive from the same instinct, and both lead to the same result, a loss of individual liberty. I don’t care whether the nose of the camel is soft or hard, it does not belong under the tent!

          • JSobieski

            http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html

            Scroll down for the part on the “Spending Power”

            The irony is that government’s spending power (and its taxing power) is far broader than its regulatory power. This leads to an odd result illustrated by Obamacare/

            If government tries to regulated private activities outside of the enumerated powers of Section 8 of Article I, then that power can effectively be challenged.

            If government just raises taxes and does the private activity by itself, spending power (which is broader than regulatory power) says NO PROBLEM.

            So Medicare and Medicare aren’t issues, but Obamacare is?
            Single Payor is constitutionally fine, but private-public hybrids are not.

            You have to admit, its kind of odd.

          • JSobieski

            Perry? That guy is totally “PRO AMNESTY”—look at what he did with in-state tuition.

            Newt wants to force everyone to buy health insurance—he said is pro “individual mandate”

            Did you hear that Coburn wants to raise taxes on individuals and businesses?

            The Boehner plan CUT more than a trillion dollars of government spending.

            Ryan’s medicare reform plan actually CUTS spending.

            You get the point.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    just go down the line, and read one after one, then you will have your answer. I think Erik played this hand perfectly. My only question is, why hasn?t he lumped Newt in with Santorum, they were built from the same cloth.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    I thought we we were Perrikrishnas or something.

  • jakeofalltrades

  • acat

    mittstate.com
    romneystate.com
    perrystate.com
    cainstate.com
    fredstate.com (for historical reasons)
    timstate.com

    and pointed all of them to redstate.com…

    I just couldn’t figure out (a) how not to piss off Erick and (b) how to make a profit at it.

    Mew

  • jakeofalltrades

    but either-or should work.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    (after the mispronunciation of Herman Cain’s Name).

  • WA_Cowboy

    …

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . . .

  • williamjameson

    and tell me why Santorum isn’t a big gov type.

    I also see the statist type who votes for regulations to control human rights that need no regulation as well this guy wants to outlaw contraception. Sounds a little too religious while imposing his values on everyone rather than laissez-faire.

    Hard to get elected discussing things other than restoring the country and tackling the debt……..Santorum spent a portion of Sunday arguing about gay rights and contraception to college students many or whom see Obama as a surrogate father or the best thing since Clinton. My point is he shouldn’t hurt his lead focusing on things that won’t get him elected plus this guy has a habit of pushing too much abortion, gay rights and other things that make him a target of the far left loons and its not something mainstream voters care about.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/09/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like-2/

  • Common_Cents

    Since Paul’s campaign is running on “fumes”. ;)

  • aesthete

    It just has a very “earthy” sound to it.

    @ acat: I actually just laughed out loud (for real). Nice work.

  • A_Texan

    IF anything, it’s a vague tendency. Where the “pale” is is entirely unclear.

  • A_Texan

    resulted from an effort not to repeat, ad nauseam, what can be found on the frontpage, and the utter inability to even answer the charge against Santorum, because the charge is incoherent.

  • acat

    The dictionary definition seems pretty clear.

    Please.

    Mew

  • Juggernaut

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism