How did we get here? part III

I have written in two previous posts about how we came to elect the most liberal candidate in our history to the presidency. I spoke of the gradual move away from free market economics to where we are today. I want to focus now on who got us here.

I think one group has to be credited/blamed. The Republican party. The Democrats have long espoused the use of public policy for purposes of compassion. This is their defining characteristic. With the exception of Ronald Reagan and the years of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House, the Republicans have been mostly unable to explain why free markets and limited government is a goal to work toward. In the most recent election period John McCain was so unable to explain the benefits of limited government that most moderates and left leaning centrists were left with no choice in the face of the liquidity and banking crisis but to vote for the liberal.

Most people when choosing between two alternative candidates that have very little difference will vote for the candidate that explains his position the best. As much as I hate to admit it that was Barak Obama. He used his formidable language skills to paint himself as the candidate that will do something about the problems facing out economy, even though government cannot improve the economy, only harm it. From there it is up to individuals.

Over the years with the previous noted exception the Republicans have been the 'me-too but cheaper' party. That has left voters with the belief (rightly I believe) that they do not believe in limited government, just more limited that the Democrats. George W. Bush expanded the spending to a degree that there is no one that can believe he has belief in limited government. The net effect is that the people have for the most part voted for the party that most eloquently defined their beliefs. That happens not to be the party that talks and talks about limited government and then turns around and expands government to the extreme.