This article appeared in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 3/5/10. You can read the online newspaper version here, or catch the print column each week.
Sometimes “No” is the right answer
Growing up, I gained the distinction of mischief maker in my family, readily disruptive and resistant. As a baby, I was given the affectionate nickname “Baby Rambo” because of my penchant for destruction, a trait that eventually morphed into characteristic childhood defiance and eventual teenage foolhardiness. As a result, I heard one word quite often from my parents: “No.”
Today, much of the liberal movement, led by the Obama Administration, laments the Republican Party as “The Party of No.” It’s become a popular political tactic aimed to distinguish Democrats as progressive and solutions-oriented, desperately trying to solve America’s worst problems. No matter how shaky the solutions, at least they’re trying. Republicans, the story goes, stand by as angry curmudgeons, content to drive away needed reform in favor of base resistance.
But sometimes, “No” is the best answer. As a toddler, was it good for me to eat Play Doh? No. Was it right for me to whip my brother 
with a belt? No. As a teenager, did staying up until two in the morning on a school night make sense? No.
Similarly, was it wise for government to pass the largest spending bill in history (the $787 billion stimulus) based on faulty Keynesian economics? No. Did it make sense to widen massive entitlement programs, passing spend-heavy budgets in the wake of mounting deficits? No. Should government have increased its reach into the private economy through corporate pay caps, takeovers of auto companies, and bailouts of banks? No. Is the best solution for health reform implicit government control of 15% of the economy? No. Should we pass economically damaging cap-and-trade legislation based on questionable, controversial environmental science? No.
Beyond simple resistance to poor policy, however, “No” springs from a fundamental philosophical divide between liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism places great faith in government’s ability to solve societal problems. Its first inclination is toward government action, growth, and involvement. Hence President Obama’s assertion that “government,” not the private economy, “will create or save jobs.” Likewise, his beliefs that tight federal regulation will spur long-term economic success, that redistributive taxation will drive societal “equality and prosperity,” and that individual healthcare is best delivered through government planners. Liberalism, therefore, can be seen as a philosophy of government action and involvement—when societal problems arise, government says “Yes” to its own solutions.
Conservatism, by contrast, views government action with a sharply critical eye. It believes in free market capitalism, in individual responsibility, and in small, limited government. It sees these tenets as vital to liberty and freedom—where government overreaches, it restricts liberty. Conservatism holds that government plays a dangerous zero sum game with its citizenry: Where it takes revenue, its citizens lose income; where it takes responsibility, its citizens lose accountability; where it grows, it citizens shrink. As a result, conservative government is a government of limited involvement. It readily says “No” to itself, but passionately says “Yes” to liberty.
That combined maxim is what conservatives must carefully articulate in the coming months. It must embrace, even champion the need to say “No” to government overreach, but it must couple that sentiment with an unwavering desire to protect liberty and freedom.
In reality, conservatives have offered prudent, measured solutions to the various problems facing the nation. On the economy, they’ve sought tax cuts to help spur investment and consumption from the private sector. On healthcare, they’ve proposed tort reform, portability, and transparency. On the deficit, they’ve offered a tough, but necessary rollback in government spending and administration. Republicans must learn to artfully weave these ideas into the fabric of foundational conservative values. Then they can become, as Ronald Reagan said, the “revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people.”
Ron Paul is famously known in the House of Representatives as “Dr. No” for his refusal to vote for any spending not explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Is he a bit extreme? Perhaps, but his defense and respect for the Constitution have proved a powerful indictment of government disregard for constraint, of how far we have drifted from our foundational structure.
Sometimes “No” is the right answer. When it comes to expansive, spend-heavy government, it may nearly always be the right answer. My parents were not “The Parents of No” for their careful restraint of my immature actions as a child. They were simply wise guardians of the right path for my life. In fact, it may be that “No” saved me from myself. Perhaps government should do the same.
-Matt Benchener is Supervisor of Newtown Township and Founder of TruPolitics.net
Posted by mattbenchener 
