Thinking about David Frum’s plea for the Republican Party to embrace “Big Government Conservatism” can be understood from this angle. The more a government is limited the less it can do to bribe the powerful. If follows that, the more a candidate for office truly represents a limitation of state growth (let alone an actual reduction in the scope of state activity), the less he has to offer the gatekeepers who can put him into office.

Of course, the usual illustration for this, is payments to the poor. This is a prevalent model (a model of what to oppose) in conservative Christian circles. Supposedly, now that the government gives money to the poor, the poor have an incentive to vote for those candidates that will promise them more “free” (free to them) money and other benefits at the expense of other people in society. So in theory this is always the problem with democracies and welfare transfer payments.

But I don’t find this a convincing analysis.

It is true that the poor can and do vote, and it is true that they are taught to think that voting in this way is in their own best interests. But this fact is miniscule compared to other factors in play. The main factor that is relevant here is that the poor, almost by definition, never have much power in society. The only exceptions might be found in cases of extreme rioting (though I’d look for leadership and manipulation from outside that economic class even in those cases). The poor are cannon fodder—whether literally or figuratively. Always.

It is never the poor who drive campaigns for more alleged educational benefits. It is the teachers, their union, and their allies in government who are nearer to their own social class. It is not the poor who really drive welfare benefits, but the many better off who get jobs serving their needs, distributing funds, and getting paid for doing so.

The issue isn’t simply who votes for what. That is a factor but not usually a significant one. What matters is the powerful groups who use the poor for leverage. While the fact that the poor can be used that way does say something good about society, the fact remains that the poor are not the ones in control with their votes.

What you need to win elections are the resouces required to 1) win a popularity contest and 2) find creative ways to get people to show up at the polls. This requires money and labor. So the questions then becomes academic: Can a political party that expects people to only donate their money and labor/time expect to beat a political party that expects people to exchange their money and labor/time for real goods in exchange?

The answer is obvious, and it is equally obvious that Frum is just trying to give the GOP a fighting chance. If they don’t embrace more interventions and more taxation—with the favors and handouts made possible by those taxes—the Republican party has no chance. The ones who offer real goods and services will get the money and thus in most cases win elections.

Of course, for myself, I would rather be part of a losing political party that wanted to do what is in the national interest, rather than being a corrupt parasite selling the nation out to the rich and powerful. But I’m just funny that way.

This would also explain, by the way, how Frum gets funding despite being really unpopular with republicans. A “new majority” of funding, if you will.