In Federalist 51, James Madison explained: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” That first part has been described as government asserting a “monopoly on violence.”
That second aspect – attempting to ensure that government controls itself – has proven difficult no matter which party controls a particular institution, though for different reasons.
Certainly we could wonder aloud whether any government could control itself if run by progressives who believe in a “living Constitution.”
But assume that you generally believe in the natural law recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the limited form of federal government articulated in the Constitution.
Far too often, such (small c) conservatives have fallen for wolves in sheep’s clothing who claim to be “for business” without articulating a position applicable to all business rather than select few.
For example, I believe strongly that businesses in Newport Beach thrive when we have strong public safety, clean and functional roads, solid infrastructure, and low barriers to entry.
I do not believe, though, that being “pro-business” means picking winners and losers with subsidies or targeted regulations. Such a system creates “rent seeking,” which is when a person manipulates public policy as a strategy for increasing profits.
As explained in the book “The Captured Economy”, “rents enjoyed through government favoritism not only misallocate resources in the short term but they also discourage dynamism and growth over the long term.” Further, “the end result is always to redistribute income from groups with less political power to groups with more.”
So look, don’t just vote for a person because of the party affiliation. Take the extra step to figure out if they actually have a philosophical underpinning. Because it’s tough to stand tall when roots are shallow.
