Ken Cuccinelli was a hit at CPAC this Thursday, but the speech and the earlier repudiation of the ATR “No Tax Pledge” has already raised the heckles of more than a few.
Of course, did they read the speech? Prolly not….
…and did they listen to the speech? Prolly not…
Folks — let me toss something out there. The day conservatives such as Ken Cuccinelli are deemed too soft for the Ivory soap crowd, it’s safe to say that those people are outside the boundaries of the conservative movement.
The full transcript of the speech is here, but the meat of it — and a tiny bit of insight as to why Cuccinelli repudiated the ATR pledge — can be summarized in the points Ken makes in his CPAC comments:
(1) Simplify and create a more fair tax code.
(2) Kill regulations and streamline government.
(3) Rein in government spending.
(4) Refuse to settle for mediocrity in education.
(5) Restore the dignity of all human life.
So where’s the complaint coming from? Trained observers can detect this from a mile away… Cuccinelli’s kickoff (and a detailed platform at that) is an inherently Catholic weltanschaung.
It’s not a libertarian one… and that’s gonna hurt.
Now there are a good number of Catholic libertarians out there (Tom Woods is an excellent example) that thread the needle very well. But like any good student of philosophy, work your way backwards here to find out what Ken is saying:
(1) All human beings deserve human dignity.
(2) …so the state has a responsibility to ensure they are properly educated.
(3) Government should live within strictly defined means.
(4) …and should do as little as possible to restrict the free market without violating #1, ergo…
(5) …our tax codes should be simple, flat, and fair; construed in a way where we understand where the money is going and to what purpose to maintain civil society.
OK, so that sounds rather innocuous… right?
So what’s missing? That tiny little piece of modern conservative orthodoxy… “thou shalt not raise taxes.”
It’s an interesting twist. When conservatives are pressed for the definition of their philosophy in practice, you get a multitude of different responses; variations on a theme. Smaller government, lower taxes. Free minds, free speech, and a free society. The “leave me alone” coalition. Liberty. A resistance to change and an adherence to the tried and true. The “non-coercion” principle… and so forth.
Cuccinelli’s concept of liberty and freedom holds strains from the definition Lord Acton would have expressed: “Liberty is the right to do as one ought.” You hear in this voice the echoes of the natural law tradition of Jefferson and Locke, not the novelties of Rand and Peikoff.
Then there’s that “social justice” strain that you heard at the CPAC speech — one instantly recognizable to the Catholic and even the civil libertarian ear, in this instance with regards to prison reform:
I want to make it a priority for our state to become a leader in addressing this difficult issue. I also want to continue to be a mighty voice for those who have been falsely convicted of a crime but remain in prison because no one is willing to argue their innocence. And how many times have I seen my fellow tough-on-crime conservatives be not merely willing, but excited, to lock up every convict and throw away the key? If we really believe that no one is beyond redemption, we need to stop throwing away that key! Conservatives should lead in changing the culture of corrections in America. To me, serving as an advocate for those without a voice in our society would be among the greatest honors I could have as Governor.
Fair tax codes mean a shifting of burdens. Simple tax codes mean some taxes get eliminated so that fairer taxes are implemented. Decreasing regulations and eliminating fees means that the costs have to go somewhere else. Cutting spending and reducing the size and scope of government means your tax loophole gets closed. Education shouldn’t merely strive for mediocrity.
Most importantly, a culture that upholds the dignity of human life means a government that does the same.
Merely adhering to “no tax hikes” or wrapping ourselves around the ATR pledge? How has that been working for us over the last 20 years? Has government shrunk? No — it’s expanded. Have taxes been lowered? Not only have they gone up, spending has increased as conservatives use fees and debt to fund bigger government while avoiding reform. Has debt increased? Most certainly… that was the point of the ATR pledge… to mire the government in debt in the hopes it would arrest its growth.
Conservatism isn’t about “no tax pledge” bumper sticker ideology. It never has been.
What it has been about is limited government, smaller government, free enterprise, and a free society.
…because this is what government looks like today.
It’s the dirty secret every liberal knows. Conservatives will slit their own throats to pay a little less today while the government leans forward towards greater expansion, larger projects, wider scope, and higher taxes for the future — anything to get elected to the next higher office four years later.
Cuccinelli understands that fixing the problem is going to cost money on top of the massive cuts Virginians may (or may not) tolerate.
No small wonder why the piss-and-vinegar wing of the Tea Party is now casting aspersions on Ken Cuccinelli now.
The great question we get to answer is this: which is more conservative? Lower taxes now but a government engineered to expand? Or fixing the problem today for slightly higher cost?
The answer — were it your family or mine — is slightly increase the cost today and make it fair, but put the Leviathan in an iron cage. Going for short term gain for long term pain? Continuing to follow the Keynesian path?
That’s absurd. Not conservative.
