redblueamerica.com

Eric Rauchway has a piece up at The New Republic suggesting that Republicans, historically, aren't that good at governance.

As they say on Wall Street, past performance is no guarantee of future earnings, but it's not implausible to project a new, long-lasting Democratic coalition arising out of these Republican missteps--one that might, if history is any guide, eventually doom itself by overreaching.

This probably isn't an accident. The rhetoric of the modern Republican party has been more anti-governance than good governance. From Ronald Reagan's declaration that "government isn't the solution; government is the problem" to Grover Norquist's goal of reducing government "to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" the words have been pretty consistent.

The record has been consistent, too, but in almost precisely the opposite fashion. Let's take Reagan, for example.

Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent—a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

And I don't think I'll get much argument from my Republican friends when I note that government spending has grown by leaps and bounds under the Bush Administration. Taxes and revenues certainly haven't grown enough to keep up with the spending, plunging the country back into a level of debt that may have helped lay the foundation for our current economic crisis.

Here's the thing: Smaller government sounds, voters want government programs. They want their Social Security check, they want their pills paid for, they want nice roads to drive on, and while they may not want to be burdened by regulations, they certainly want the companies that make their children's toys to be regulated. I could give you a million more examples, but you get the idea.

Republican politicians know this. That's why they never actually shrink government -- and often expand it with the same zeal as Democrats. They also know that their tax-cutting zeal goes over well with voters, so they stick to that part of the plank, no matter how irresponsible it is in light of their other actions.

So let's review:

* Republicans promote anti-government rhetoric.
* When in charge of government, they refuse to pay for it.
* Such efforts invariably collapse.

Seen in this light, somebody like Ron Paul actually seems very honorable -- because it appears his idea of governance actually matches his rhetoric.

I've said this before: Let's never hear again about "tax and spend" Democrats. It's better for the country than the "borrow and spend" habits of the Republicans.