comes when Sullivan is talking about the use, by “conservatives of faith,” of government “to promote certain activities. . . and to deter others”: “Bush has added another twist to this philosophy, seeking not only to expand government programs from the top down, but from the bottom up, by incorporating new mechanisms that give citizens more choice. Hence Health Savings Accounts in Medicare and personal accounts within Social Security. If that actually means more government borrowing and spending, so be it. If government must be expanded to give more people a sense of ‘ownership’ within government programs, fine. This is what remains of conservatism’s old belief in individual freedom. The new conservatism of faith has substituted real choice in a free market for regulated choice within an ever-expanding welfare state.”
When Sullivan talks about contemporary conservatism, he’s generally talking about Bush. The fact that the No Child Left Behind Act was a bipartisan bill—House Republicans were five times more likely to vote against it than House Democrats—does not stop him from saying that the act reflects modern conservatism. That’s not an illegitimate move. But it bears keeping in mind here, because it isn’t true that Bush takes a “so be it” attitude on increased spending for Health Savings Accounts and personal accounts within Social Security. Bush does not concede that the Social Security accounts mean a long-term increase in spending or borrowing; the administration has been talking about pairing the accounts with cuts in future benefits. Nor does Bush concede that a tax cut—which is what the health savings account is—is “spending.”
I think it is unreasonable to regard health savings accounts or Social Security accounts as expansions of the welfare state. Both measures are anti-statist in themselves, and may have broader anti-statist effects down the line (which is part of why some conservatives, including me, support them). They are part of a strategy for limiting government in an era where direct limits are extremely difficult to enact. This passage is a small part of Sullivan’s essay, but I think it is an important wrong turn in his analysis. Because if you get this wrong, you misunderstand the impact of Bush’s project on conservatism.