American conservatives need to rediscover the charm of small government

ONE thing the Republican Party has usually been able to depend on is the support of well-off capitalists: from Calvin Coolidge's declaration that “the chief business of the American people is business” to George Bush's generous tax cuts, it has always been pretty clear to wealth-creators which side their bread is buttered on. No longer. With all polls predicting a Democratic sweep of House, Senate and presidency in 2008, the smart money is flowing the Democrats' way.

A Wall Street Journal poll last month showed that only 37% of professionals and managers identify themselves as Republicans or leaning that way. A YouGov/Polimetrix poll for The Economist finds that only 44% of those earning more than $150,000 plan to vote Republican. So it is no surprise—though historically astonishing—that the Democrats' presidential candidates have raised substantially more than Republican ones.

There are several obvious reasons for this. The shrill voices of religious conservatives have driven away many pragmatic Republicans who feel that banning abortion and gay marriage are not the most pressing issues confronting America. The Bush administration's incompetence, evident from Iraq to Louisiana, alienates people who know about management.

But the most damaging factor has been the Republicans' inability to control the federal budget. By slashing taxes without cutting spending, Mr Bush turned the budget surplus of $240 billion he inherited from Bill Clinton into a deficit that bottomed out at over $400 billion, and is still running at $160 billion. Mr Clinton's free-trade record was better as well. The current crop of Democrats are less angelic: they are a protectionist bunch and they show few signs of wanting to curb big entitlement programmes. But, for the moment at least, they look better than the Republicans on spending. For instance, they have instituted “pay-go” rules, which mean that any new spending must be fully funded; and they have stuck to them.

Belatedly (to put it mildly), the administration has realised that it has lost the mantle of sound economic management to the Democrats. On October 3rd Mr Bush picked up his dusty veto pen, using it to cut back spending for the first time in his presidency. Astonishingly, he chose the wrong issue to wield it on: a proposal to expand a highly popular scheme that subsidised health insurance for poorer children. This from a man who had let Republican pork through by the sty-load.

Try Main Street, not Church Street

In truth, given his record, Mr Bush's chances of looking a convincing small-government conservative are close to zero. The presidential candidates are different. Both Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner, and John McCain have proposed promising market-oriented proposals on health care (see article). They also talk much more favourably than Democrats do about free trade and fiscal control. What is needed from them—and Mitt Romney as well—is more detail.

Taxes, trade, health care: these are subjects Main Street wants to know more about. But the religious right does not. Rather than building a pragmatic centre-right alternative to Hillary Clinton, the conservative movement is stuck with God, gays and guns. The immensely powerful “family” movement is gathering this weekend in Washington—and all Republican candidates are dutifully attending. As long as the business of the Republican Party seems not to be business, it can hardly complain if businesspeople look elsewhere.