I would say, however, that the problem is more endemic than the actual conservatism of self-identified conservatives: rather, the problem is that most people vote based on rhetoric and events that transpire in the campaign, and after the campaign, tune out unless something ends up on the news. HCR really wasn’t that different from most other entitlement programs and initiatives, and in fact, is less centralized than, say, Social Security. The difference is, people are paying attention this time around. How many other government initiatives, if they received the same level of attention, would similarly be hated? Most people don’t like politics (who can blame them?), and avoid talking and thinking about it as much as is humanly possible. Our task is to show them that it is important to pay at least some attention, and to not rely on party identification to determine if something is good or not.

I’ll add another one that is unpopular to mention, but nonetheless hypocritical: the War on Drugs. It encapsulates pretty much everything that conservatives rail against: usurpation of state powers, nixing of individual rights to do what they want free of government infringement, a police state dedicated to same, infringements of rights to privacy, paternalistic views of protection of an individual from himself, the conflation of “society” and government, lack of results, started by a progressive, etc. Yet, besides the National Review, I have yet to see conservatives even acknowledge the tremendous excesses of the Drug War, and if anything, I see them wanting to escalate this (in many cases quite literal) war against citizens! I don’t bring up the Drug War to be “that guy”, and right now, there are more important issues. It’s just another example of something that, were it done with another substance (say, cigarettes or alcohol), would have conservatives screaming about government oppression: and rightly so.

80% of the federal government’s expenditures are comprised of welfare/unemployment, defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Social Security and Medicare, in particular, have costs that are going to skyrocket as the population gets older and there are less young people to pay for these programs. There isn’t enough “wasteful spending” (a phrase as useful as “common sense idea” in politics) to balance the budget on. You simply can’t be a small government conservative, or for balanced budgets, without calling for entitlement reform. You certainly can’t if, as the Republican Study Commission did, you draw up a budget that does nothing to change these programs, “freezes spending” at the ’08 levels (hah!), repeals Obamacare and TARP, doesn’t raise taxes, and hopes for massive increases in tax receipts, and it’s shameful that someone on this site (can’t remember who; I’ll look it up later) called it “courageous”, presumably out of ignorance for what the plan actually says it will do. Arms-length support and cool dismissal of serious Republicans who have actually cut or reformed government, such as Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, and Cary Coleman, is particularly worrisome for those of us looking for real solutions to problems that will overwhelm us if we aren’t careful.

That said, people are paying attention, and after Bush and Obama (and upon seeing the collapse of Southern Europe), are receptive to a small government message. I lived in Georgia during the Bush years, and was able to convince many of my friends there that ag subsidies are just as bad as other subsidies. Glenn Beck is hysterical, emotional, and overstates his case, but a large part of his appeal comes from the fact that he is willing to put aside the rah-rah endorsement of the Republican party common in talk show radio, and look and talk about things like liberty. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” is the #1 non-fiction book in Amazon right now. All of those are good signs for those of us who clamor for limited government, moreso because they are occurring in the midst of a recession: virtually unheard of in the 20th century!

Most conservatives are willing to give you a fair hearing if you’re arguing in good faith, and if you’ve given them reason to trust you. Problem is, we only have media personalities willing to speak in cliches as if to children, for fear that they will be found out as frauds or “extremists”. Bill O’Reilly is chief among these. My hope is that with the advent of blogs and the new media, people will be willing to read and think more in-depth than political mantras will allow. It’s pretty hard to escape the truth that we need entitlement reform if you are earnestly looking.

Canada did it. New Zealand did it (and is continuing to do it). Costa Rica and Panama did it to some extent. The UK did it. Chile did it. Call me optimistic, but if all of them could rein in the Leviathan, then far be it from me to claim that the heirs of the Founding Fathers are incapable of the task before us!

because Bush was promoting it than anything else.