I want Amash to do this, just so we can demonstrate, once & for all, that "principled small-government conservatism" is, in US politics, epiphenomenal. It exists almost entirely in think tanks or dorm-room bull sessions. It has no real weight or influence. washingtonpost.com/politics/indep…
There is the demographic in power, threatened with losing power, fighting to preserve it. There is an unwieldy coalition of outsider demographics, fighting to spread the power/money/privileges more broadly & fairly. The "size of gov't" debate is orthogonal to that, a sideshow.
Historically, "small gov't" was a good cover for "preserving the network of privileges, rigged rules, & subsidies that keep us in power." "Fiscal conservatism" was good cover for "fighting against extending public support to new demographics."
"Free markets" was good cover for "the rigged markets that keep is in power are the way God intended; changes are unnatural." All the alleged principles were rhetorical gambits supporting the real effort, which is preserving white male Christian hegemony in US culture.
You can tell it's true because any time one of the alleged principles *threatened* the power or privileges of the ruling demographic, it was thrown overboard without a peep. As in all political systems everywhere, power has always been the point.
So let's find out: how many voters will support "principled small-gov't conservatism" ***even if it means that the white male Christian demographic & the industries with which it is typically allied lose power as a result***. My guess: Justin Amash, in a room, alone.
