Limited government, the Republican Party, and young voters

The aftermath of election 2008 was supposed to be about young voters, and it is, but for an unexpected reason.  Young voters (age 18-29) did not turn out in droves as expected, but they did go 2-1 for Barack Obama, a dramatic shift to the Democrats from earlier years.

Already, there is talk of the GOP’s future.  Leslie Carbone says to go full bore for the old principles:

For 20 years, conservatives have been carrying water for Republicans who don’t get it, hoping for a dollop of porridge here and there. Now they’ve been unequivocally booted, and we can start over, better off without them.

The sun has set on the era of big-government Republicanism. And yes, we are entering a period of darkness. But we can bring morning back to America.

Many others have said similar things, only to be shouted down as fools for being so doctrinaire at a time when voters want the parties to work together.  I don’t by the criticism – if the American people wanted Democrats to work with Republicans, they would have elected more of the latter.

Still, we will hear a lot about how young voters in particular are so enthralled by Obama that any opposition to his big-government domestic plans will lose the GOP a generation of voters.  Not so fast.

See, those of us who remember when the Republicans were the party of limited government consider those days either halcyon or so far in the past as to be useless.  What we tend to forget is this: it was so long ago that young voters don’t remember it.

The last time the Republican Party stuck its neck out and went “to the mattresses” on limited government was the “government shutdown” of 1995.  Say what you will about it, the party establishment has been spooked ever since.  Thus Gingrich et al rolled over to Clinton’s spendthrift demands in 1998 and hoped Monica Lewinsky would rescue them (she didn’t).  George W. Bush ran on “compassionate conservatism” and caught a break when Al Gore’s voters concentrated themselves too heavily in the northeast; then he (Bush) ran for re-election on national security issues, and won.  We all remember 2006 and last Tuesday.

So, the last time the Republican Party actually tried to reduce the size of government, the oldest young voter in America today was sixteen.  Now, I followed politics at that age, but I was a geek.  Most American teenagers aren’t.  In other words, no young American voter has ever seen the Republicans try to reduce the size and scope of government.

So, for them, this election was a contest between a big-government party with the charismatic mixed-race nominee with his better-than-any-comedian-on-earth running mate and a big-government party with a cantankerous old guy with the folksy Alaskan.

Are we really surprised who won?

This tells me that limited government could still find an audience in America – especiallyamong America’s young voters.  In fact, none other than David Frum (not usually confused for an economic conservative) agrees (well, sort of) in the National Post:

Since 1988, Democrats have become more conservative on economics – and Republicans have become more conservative on social issues.

College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.

That pretty much sums up the problem.

So I would beseech my fellow Republicans across the land, don’t fall for the nonsense that we must abandon “old” ideas and “adapt” to the 21st Century.  To millions of our fellow Americans, Republicans demanding government stop taking their money and exerting more control over their lives would be something entirely new – and welcome.