Several of us Cornerites criticized the president’s record on federal spending over the weekend. But let’s not let our fellow conservative voters (and writers) off the hook. Voters, including conservative voters, often say they would prefer federal spending to decrease. But conservative voters are not a reliable anti-spending constituency.

They may talk a good game on spending. But most conservatives who get, say, farm subsidies, will vote as a subsidy recipient rather than as a conservative if it comes down to it. Spending programs always have more committed constituencies than opponents.

Consider the recent congressional vote to get $40 billion in savings over the next five years. Conservatives have noted, rightly, that this is a tiny percentage of the federal budget. But as small as they are, it was a very difficult vote for congressmen to cast. Having supported that bill will cost the congressmen votes this fall, not gain them any.

Conservative voters don’t have the same incentive to be informed or to take effective political action that pro-spending constituencies have. So it’s not surprising, in a way, that conservatives have done next to nothing to try to help the congressmen who voted for the $40 billion in savings–they’ve hardly even offered any praise–or that they have instead embarked on an almost entirely symbolic campaign against earmarks.

Now the electoral dynamics I’ve mentioned do not explain why spending growth is higher in one period than another. (I think much of what’s happened recently is a result of such changes as welfare reform: Federal spending is no longer seen as part of an assault on middle-class values, and public tolerance for it has accordingly increased.) But until we have changed those dynamics, we will regularly be complaining about overspending politicians.