Is There a Bush-Goldwater Connection?

Whatever else you have to say about Krugman, he’s a really smart guy, and he at least used to be a fascinating economics writer (not always someone to agree with, but certainly interesting to read).  But his political history leaves a lot to be desired.  In today’s column, he goes through a series of awkward rhetorical contortions in order to suggest that Bush’s presidency represents absolutely no change in conservatism whatsoever, and compares Bush not only to Reagan, but to Goldwater.

It didn’t make much sense when Harold Meyer said it, and it still doesn’t.

Here’s what Krugman says:

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence. But disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern conservatism. In “The Conscience of a Conservative,” published in 1960, Barry Goldwater wrote that “I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.”

This is problematic on any number of levels.  But basically, Krugman is conflating Bush’s mismanagement–the basically uncontroversial idea (at this point) that the Bush administration has not been particular adept at making programs function smoothly–with Goldwater’s desire to drastically reduce the size and scope of government.  But that’s like a comparing a bad skate-boarder who insists on trying out for the X-Games every year with someone who wants to do away with sports entirely.  There are plenty of reasons to fault Bush, but his adherence to Goldwaterite small-government dogma isn’t one of them.