Once upon a time, conservatives believed in a limited federal government and fiscal restraint. They still do, though it increasingly seems that those principles are means rather than moral ends — conservatives argue for those principles because they’ll lead to a better world, instead of just saying those are the proper principles of a government that is just.
On Monday, when the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the Senate healthcare bill, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth in Republican offices: The CBO forecast the bill would eventually lead to 22 million fewer people having health coverage.
So Republicans launched into spin mode. The CBO has a bad track record of predicting how many people have health insurance. The CBO is using outdated numbers. That number doesn’t take into account how many people are choosing to have no health insurance rather than pay a fine under Obamacare’s individual mandate.
All those critiques are fair and true. But the problem for Republicans is that they made healthcare a debate about oversimplified metrics rather than the proper role of government. As my colleague Phil Klein wrote in January: “Republicans…are having a tough time stating a simple truth, which goes something like this: ‘We don’t believe that it is the job of the federal government to guarantee that everybody has health insurance.'”
If the healthcare debate were about the role of government, the CBO score wouldn’t make much difference. Sure, if conservatives want that argument, they might lose it. But conservatives — from those in Congress, to think-tanks, journalists, academics and every-day Joes — can only blame ourselves for not spending the last eight years making that our biggest argument against Obamacare.
The conservative failure to debate morals isn’t just limited to healthcare.
On Monday, a study of Seattle’s minimum wage hikes showed that the city’s low-income workers were actually worse off because of it, earning on average $1,500 less per year. “Told you so! The minimum wage hurts the people you think it’s going to help,” conservatives argued.
This is true, and an important point to make. But there’s a bigger problem with the minimum wage. As I wrote back in March 2016:
At their most base level, minimum wage laws ban two consenting adults from entering into a contract. Desperate for work, and happy to take a job offering $5 an hour so you can help feed your family? Too bad. Even if a potential employer would be happy to pay you $5 an hour, it’s illegal.
Conservatives fall into the same trap on school choice. When two new studies about school voucher programs and test scores came out on Monday that weren’t unambiguously positive for vouchers, school choice supporters jumped to explain why the studies were fairly positive for school choice (and they have a point).
But the point about school choice isn’t test scores, it’s educational freedom. As I wrote in May, “Parents decide what the best schools are, not bureaucrats or studies. Just because Cheerios are the most heart-healthy cereal doesn’t mean we take away one’s choice to choose the cereal with the most fiber, protein, or sugar.”
The same problem applies to tax cuts, too. Yes, they’re good for the economy and create jobs. But we each know how to spend our own money better for us than the government can, and we deserve to keep more of it rather than see it wasted in bureaucracy.
No matter the issue, conservatives (and libertarians, for those issues they agree on) can all do a better job of making arguments from principle rather than potential consequences.
Legislating isn’t just about trying to design positive outcomes — after all, every legislation has winners and losers. It’s about designing our government to be moral and just. The best way to do that is through limited government.
Jason Russell is the contributors editor for the Washington Examiner.
