Hey, Big Spender

Ryan Sager is claiming that "the Republican promise of smaller, less-intrusive government is getting harder and harder to believe." I agree wholeheartedly.

Furthermore, this points to the differences between Republicans, Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives. Generally speaking, Conservatives believe that a smaller federal government is desirable because problems are best solved closest to the source: in the family, community, municipality or even at the state (provence) level. For example, the solution for Bill losing his job is best handled locally and the solution might be different in Peoria than in Los Angeles. The so-called Neo-Conservatives,largely made of refugees from the Democratic party, tend to believe in less taxes but not necessarily less federal government involvement. The Republicans, that Grand Old Party, believes in whatever will get it the votes to keep members in office (or to get them there if the seat is held by another party).

Both Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives tend to hold a very specific set of beliefs. The major philosophical stance of Conservatives, for example, can be found in Russell Kirk's writings. Neo-Conservatives can point to an amalgam of Reagan and JFK. The Republicans, on the other hand, have held polar opposite beliefs as times have changed (they were isolationistic in the 30's but to day are not, for example) which speaks to no coherent philosophy, which makes sense as their goals tend to be more short term and pragmatic (to get politician X in to office or to keep Incumbent Y in office).

What we end up with is Conservatives and occasionally Neo-Conservatives complaining that the GOP is moving away from their principles when the Republicans (and the Democrats and Labour in the UK and whatnot) don't have principles in the same sense.