Dealing with the entitlement crisis is a prime example of why populism must not overshadow conservatism

LITD recently liked to a bracing and unflinching Manhattan Institute proposal for a federal budget that once and for all stems the tide of increasing government indebtedness.

Michael R. Strain at the American Enterprise Institute offers another important contribution to the conversation. He examines the political and ideological angle. In fact, the title of his piece at Bloomberg is, "If Republicans Won't Confront Entitlements, Who Will?"

He reviews the recent lack of Republican spine from ostensible conservatives, which mainly has appeared during election cycles when the likes of Mitt Romney and, more unfortunately, Paul Ryan, felt the need to couch their intentions in terms of "protecting" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from those who would cut spending on them.

But now we have layered upon that customary fecklessness this new populism that swept over the nation's political scene with the advent of the Very Stable Genius:

President Donald Trump’s position on Medicare and Social Security has carried over from campaign season and is outside the Republican norm.

He has repeatedly stated that he will not cut spending on Medicare and Social Security. The president's will about this appears to be strong. For example, he resisted his budget director’s attempt last fall to advocate for changes in Medicare and Social Security that would reduce their future spending along with the national debt.

For his part, House Speaker Ryan has still presented the typical GOP view. “Good reforms can mean that we can better perform the mission of these important programs, health and retirement security, without bankrupting the country,” he said last month. The speaker expressed optimism that if Republicans keep the House and expand their majority in the Senate following next month’s midterm elections, then such reforms could occur.

Count me as skeptical. Congressional Republicans have been quite happy to go where the president is pointing on entitlements and on much else. If anything, Democrats are moving toward expanding spending on these programs.

If Congressional conservatives don't grow spines and forthrightly address this, their principles will be hopelessly muddied, and there will be real-life implications:

Entitlement reform is more than an accounting exercise. At stake is the health care and retirement security for future generations. The sooner we act, the better we will be able to protect those who will be affected by the change. Conservatism has seen this issue as an exercise in advancing the common good.

The GOP’s turn away from reducing future entitlement spending is bad for conservatism, which has prided itself on promoting the common good and possessing a serious governing vision based on objective reality and prudent judgment.  

Populism is polluting this vision. President Trump knows who elected him, and many of his supporters think they would be hurt by changes to Medicare and Social Security. The GOP’s abandonment of entitlement reform is another example of putting the good of the whole aside in favor of what’s good for the tribe. 

Relying on the Very Stable Genius to have a "very good brain" and have a plan to "take care of everybody" is a pretty poor substitute for looking squarely at what we're facing and putting on the big-boy pants and dealing with it.

We'e here because about a hundred years ago, this nation became enamored of the notion that government ought to address the two givens of the human condition: getting sick and growing old. It was a bad idea, but that's water under the bridge. We now have to do what's necessary to avert the country being submerged in debt we can't ever repay.