Send to a friend

The race for the Republican presidential nomination reflects the extent to which conservatives have abandoned their own principles. The two leading Republican contenders, George W. Bush and John McCain, are waging a fierce fight over who is the true conservative and the real government reformer.

But what does conservatism have to do with reform of government programs? Conservatives were once guided by the moral principles undergirding economic liberty, free markets, private property, and limited government. If a government program violated those principles, conservatives would ardently oppose it.

No longer. Now the quest is not to abolish anything - not even the once-favorite whipping boy, the National Endowment for the Arts - but rather to reform and improve government departments, agencies, and programs.

Consider the crown jewel of the socialistic welfare state - Social Security. Here's a government program that is the absolute embodiment of the socialist dictum "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." By now, everyone should know that there is no Social Security fund and that there never has been one. Social Security is a straight transfer program. The Internal Revenue Service taxes the young and productive, and the Social Security Administration administers the welfare to the elderly. The system is based on taking what belongs to one person and giving it to someone to whom it does not belong.

Let's not forget the roots of Social Security. It did not originate with Madison, Washington, or Jefferson. In fact, our American ancestors would have nothing to do with such a program. That's why Americans lived without Social Security from 1787 to 1935. Social Security originated with German socialists during the regime of Otto von Bismarck, the "iron chancellor" of German during the late 19th century. That's where President Roosevelt got the idea.

When Roosevelt proposed Social Security as part of his New Deal for America, conservatives ardently opposed the program. They emphasized that it was morally wrong for a person to take what didn't belong to him, even when it was being accomplished through the collective action of the state; that Social Security would constitute an assault on family values; and that government had no business taking care of people.

Alas, no longer! Today, conservatives are totally committed to conserving the socialism of Social Security. Mention repeal of Social Security, and conservatives have as big a fit as the most ardent leftist. The conservative buzzword of today is "reform," as if a morally and economically bankrupt socialist program were capable of being reformed.

It's the same with public schooling. McCain and Bush and other conservatives want to "reform" a system that they all admit is a failure. What they don't want to recognize is that public schooling has failed not for lack of the right reform but simply because it is inherently defective.

It is impossible to find a better example of socialistic central planning than public schooling. A central board of elected or appointed commissars, whether at a national, state, or local level, plans, in a top-down fashion, the educational decisions of thousands or millions of children. Attendance is coercive. People are forced to fund the system through taxation. Students are required to listen to state-approved doctrine from state-approved schoolteachers using state-approved textbooks.

If central planning has failed all over the world in the production of goods and services, why should we expect it to succeed in the area of education? On the other hand, everyone knows that the free market produces the best of everything - food, clothing, automobiles, and churches. Why wouldn't it produce similar results in the educational arena?

Yet, do we hear conservatives, the great advocates of free enterprise, advocating a free market in education by ending all state involvement in education? On the contrary! They don't even openly call for the abolition of the Department of Education anymore. They're now simply calling for "reform," as if educational socialism, even at a state or local level, could finally be made to succeed, after 100 years of admitted failure.

The inherent conflict within the conservative movement is its dual devotion to freedom and conserving. When people live in a free society, conservatives are apt to fight hard to conserve their freedom. The problem arises when people live under the yoke of such socialist programs as Social Security and state schooling. When that happens, conservatives unfortunately subordinate their dedication to freedom and free markets to conserving the society in which they live.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va.

Send to a friend