Noonan: Tea Party thrives because it promotes decentralization while the GOP, like the Democrats, brings more government

This fact marks our political age: The pendulum is swinging faster and in shorter arcs than it ever has in our lifetimes. Few foresaw the earthquake of 2008 in 2006. No board-certified political professional predicted, on Election Day 2008, what happened in 2009-10 (New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts) and has been happening, and will happen, since then. It all moves so quickly now, it all turns on a dime.

But at this moment we are witnessing a shift that will likely have some enduring political impact. Another way of saying that: The past few years, a lot of people in politics have wondered about the possibility of a third party. Would it be possible to organize one? While they were wondering, a virtual third party was being born. And nobody organized it.

Here is Jonathan Rauch in National Journal on the tea party's innovative, broad-based network: "In the expansive dominion of the Tea Party Patriots, which extends to thousands of local groups and literally countless activists," there is no chain of command, no hierarchy. Individuals "move the movement." Popular issues gain traction and are emphasized, unpopular ones die. "In American politics, radical decentralization has never been tried on such a large scale." Here are pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen in the Washington Examiner: "The Tea Party has become one of the most powerful and extraordinary movements in American political history." "It is as popular as both the Democratic and Republican parties." "Over half of the electorate now say they favor the Tea Party movement, around 35 percent say they support the movement, 20 to 25 percent self-identify as members of the movement."

So far, the tea party is not a wing of the GOP but a critique of it. This was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when GOP operatives dismissed tea party-backed Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. The Republican establishment is "the reason we even have the Tea Party movement," shot back columnist and tea party enthusiast Andrea Tantaros in the New York Daily News. It was the Bush administration that "ran up deficits" and gave us "open borders" and "Medicare Part D and busted budgets."

Everyone has an explanation for the tea party that is actually not an explanation but a description. They're "angry." They're "antiestablishment," "populist," "anti-elite." All to varying degrees true. But as a network television executive said this week, "They should be fed up. Our institutions have failed."

I see two central reasons for the tea party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Government has doubled since 1999, deploys 70 bureaucracies to deal with hunger, and has few ways to measure success

When Thomas Jefferson famously said, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," he wasn't merely talking about the politics of his day, but the politics of human behavior across generations and across continents. President Reagan no doubt had this principle in mind throughout his presidency. Reagan updated Jefferson with his suggestion that "as government expands, liberty contracts."

We hear a lot of rhetoric today about ending the "politics of the past," but there is no question more relevant or timely than the timeless question Jefferson and our other Founders asked: "What is the proper scope of government that will maximize freedom, prosperity, and security?" Our key policy debates revolve around this question, whether politicians admit it or not. The answer from our Founders, which was enshrined in our Constitution, is unmistakable: the best government is a limited government.

The past few decades in America have been a story of progressives who didn't like that answer slowly unraveling the limitations on government through Congress and the courts. Consider where we are today. Since 1999, the total size of government, not adjusted for inflation, has doubled. Since 2001, non-defense discretionary spending (spending for things like health care, education, and the environment that have nothing to do with the military) has increased 50 percent when adjusted for inflation. Since 1994, Congress has approved more than 90,000 earmarks. And every year, Congress creates more and more regulations (i.e., the health care bill and the financial reform) that take away freedom in the name of security and progress.

Government today is so big it is almost impossible to measure how wasteful and incompetent it has become. The defense budget is such a mess it is impossible to audit. In almost every area of government there is a tremendous amount of duplication and waste and barely any metrics or measurements for success.

For instance, we have 70 different sets of bureaucracies in at least six agencies to help feed hungry people without any way to measure success.

Dodd-Frank is a triumph of overreach unrelated to problems

Instead of addressing the obvious flaws that led to the very real financial crisis that began in 2008, the Dodd-Frank bill’s labyrinth of regulatory overreach and ill-conceived changes is certain to injure our economy for years if not decades to come.

The fundamental principle of any reform has to be getting the right diagnosis, because without that you cannot possibly hope to find the right cure. The Dodd-Frank bill fails that crucial test in several ways.

First, and most importantly in this period of high unemployment, there is nothing in this bill that will help create jobs and much that will impede us in that goal. Through its numerous provisions that ban and ration credit products, make credit more costly and less available, and reduce consumer choices, the Dodd-Frank bill will be a private-sector job killer at a time when government policy ought to create an environment where private lenders lend responsibly to creditworthy consumers and small businesses. In fact, the only professions that may benefit from this bill are trial lawyers and government bureaucrats.

That sad fact gives way to yet another critical flaw in the Dodd-Frank bill: Massively expanding the size of government’s regulatory bureaucracy with new layers, agencies, and required rulemakings does not mean that oversight will get any better. In all likelihood, consumers will be worse off as the new alphabet soup of merged and restructured agencies struggle to organize, hire staff, stake out their jurisdictions and write an estimated minimum of 12 new government reports, 44 studies, and 243 new rulemakings required under the bill. All the while, banks and investors will sit cautiously on the sidelines waiting out the regulatory uncertainty of Dodd-Frank before they resume lending, Thus hampering our prospects for economic growth.