If You Can't Articulate A Limiting Principle On Government Expansion, You Get Bernie Sanders

/

Bernie Sanders has now scored a decisive victory in the Nevada caucuses, and is leading in the RealClearPolitics average of polls in almost every upcoming state. The RCP betting odds section gives Sanders a 55.6% chance of winning the nomination. It’s looking increasingly like the nomination is his to lose.

Well, if you’re the party of free stuff, why shouldn’t the guy who offers the most free stuff win? Bernie is clearly willing to outbid all of his rivals in the free stuff auction. What makes you think anybody can beat him by just bidding less?

At some point, if another candidate is going to prevail with a lesser bid, that candidate needs to articulate a limiting principle in some shape or form. By a limiting principle, I mean a reasoned argument that provides some sort of rationale as to why government programs and expenditures to solve all human wants and needs can’t just be infinite; and that provides some basis for drawing a line beyond which government growth should not occur. For example, some rival candidate could state explicitly that it is important to keep the size of the government under control in order for the private economy to succeed. Or some candidate could point out that countries with smaller government sectors do better economically. Or some candidate could argue for the positive value of self-sufficiency versus government dependency among the people. Or some candidate could point to specific proposed programs and give reasons why they are not a good idea.

But which of the Democratic candidates is willing to say any of these things? None that I can see. Indeed, the strategy of the main rivals for the nomination has been to completely accept the idea that the federal government can and should solve all human problems by more and more spending, but maybe to bid a little less than Bernie for the proposed solution to one or another such problem.

Consider the “Green New Deal.” That’s the comprehensive economic proposal from Bernie and the Congressional “Squad” that includes not only full transformation of the energy sector into use of 100% unproven magical sources, but also every other item on the progressive wish list from free college, to “economic security,” to a federal jobs guarantee, to a “living wage,” and on and on. Where are the other main candidates on this issue? The answer is that none of them will dare to call it out for how ridiculous it is, so all are stuck going along in one form or another:

  • Elizabeth Warren at a town hall meeting on February 20 said that the Green New Deal does not go far enough!  “What I want to see us do is get off an oil economy and not only for ourselves, but for the rest of the world,” Warren . . . said. “I want to see us move entirely to green. And let me say on this, I not only support a Green New Deal, I don’t think it goes far enough. I also have a Blue New Deal, because we’ve got to be thinking about our oceans as well that we need to protect.”

  • Supposed “moderate” Pete Buttigieg was quoted by CNN a year ago as saying that the Green New Deal in only “the right beginning”: "I think it's the right beginning," Buttigieg said of the resolution on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper. Calling climate change "a national emergency," Buttigieg said the concept matched "a sense of urgency about that problem of climate change with a sense of opportunity around what the solutions might represent."

  • Also supposed “moderate” Amy Klobuchar actually signed on as a co-sponsor of the GND resolution with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and others: “Klobuchar didn’t merely pay lip service to this socialist legislation; she co-sponsored the GND resolution put together by Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., along with other far-left senators like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii. Since co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, which failed spectacularly in both the House and Senate, Klobuchar has continuously bragged about her support for Ocasio-Cortez’s GND resolution.”

  • Joe Biden? Here is an excerpt from his “plan for a clean energy revolution and environmental justice” on his current website: “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” Joe has repeatedly promised to do away with all fossil fuels.

  • And Mike Bloomberg? He’s the biggest climate campaigner of all. While he hasn’t signed on to the GND per se, he has dozens of his own “climate” proposals to interfere in your life from the minute you get up until the minute you go to bed. Here is a Washington Post roundup from January 15. Examples: “[Bloomberg] said he would slash the use of fossil fuels, including natural gas, for cooking, heat and hot water by promoting pollution-free appliances and zero-carbon furnaces through a combination of federal incentives and standards, including a “Bucks for Boilers” program. By 2025, all new buildings would be required to meet zero-carbon emissions on site, so that they would be powered by electric utilities using increasing amounts of renewable sources.” This is the guy who has owned up to fourteen houses and apartments, and has four private jets to get around from one to the other.

Not a one of them has ever suggested that there might be a limit to how far any of this can go. And this is just one example. The same thing can be found in the candidates’ proposals on things like income inequality, or health care, tax increases, student debt, federal jobs programs, you name it.

Well, if there are no limits, then the highest bidder wins. Go for it, Bernie!