As a writer, I like to think that I will not hesitate to call a spade a spade. Sure, I may vote Republican more often than not, but if I see Republicans violating the small government principles that I advocate, then I will call them on it. Some people like this approach. Some are less enthusiastic about it.

My guess is that editorialists from the other side of the aisle sometimes face an equivalent, if opposite, problem.

In recent months, a handful of people have approached me about articles that I’ve written. These people are self-identified conservative Republicans. I know that their views are often in line with my own. Yet they seem to think that I am sometimes too harsh.

Generally speaking, the conversations have gone something like this:

In short, they argue, I am able to stay true to conservative principles because I merely write. I am not forced to compromise with the Democrat across the aisle before I submit my copy to an editor. By contrast, if I were faced with the task of actually governing, I would be forced to compromise the conservative principles that I so enthusiastically write about day in and day out.

Maybe they have a point. Editorials are easy to write, but real life gets complicated. Legislators who make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good" may find, in the end, that they have accomplished nothing. Are editorialists, such as myself, doing our fellow conservatives a disservice? Should our writings be less critical and more sympathetic about the realities of governing?

For the most part, I would answer such questions with a resounding "No."

Editorial theory (for lack of a better term) serves an important function in our legislative process. Admittedly, conservative editorialists are often arguing for a "10" on a 10-point scale. That "10" is not always achievable. But if the cumulative effect of our articles is to encourage legislators to move from a "3" to a "7," then we have still accomplished an important purpose.

If, on the other hand, commentators concede the ground between "10" and "7" before the argument has even begun, then we will never get even as far as the "7." Legislators will not take into account the conceded ground between "10" and "7." They will simply assume that, because I am arguing for a "7," then a "4" or "5" is probably good enough.

Editorialists—and, more importantly, voters—should reflect back to legislators the ideal "10" that we are seeking. We may not always get it. But the reminder of what we are seeking always serves a purpose. And if we manage to wrangle out a "7" this time, then maybe we can get an "8" or a "9" in a few years.

Moreover, I would dispute an argument that some people have made against the "idyllic" goals that I lay out in my articles. We are not arguing here about the differences between an "8" and a "9." When it comes to small government and low spending principles in recent years, Republicans are much closer to the "1" than they are to a "10."

In fiscal 2005, Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that a record number of pork-barrel projects—13,997—were included in appropriations bills. These projects cost taxpayers $27.3 billion. CAGW estimates that the total number of pork-barrel projects has increased by 49.5 percent during the past two years. By contrast, if we look back to 1991, the federal budget included "only" 546 pork projects at a cost of $3.1 billion. Other conservative organizations and think tanks have made similar observations about the cost and size of government in recent years.

Oodles and oodles of expensive government pork, brought to you courtesy of this supposedly conservative Republican Congress, aided and abetted by the White House.

I will always argue for the "10." Nor will I apologize for it. Perhaps the "10" is not always achievable. But if we don’t push hard for the "10," then why would we expect to achieve anything even remotely close to the best that we can do?

If we set low standards for ourselves and our officials, then we shouldn’t be surprised when that is all we accomplish.

Comments (0)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment