Yesyerday, John Miller noted this passage in Alan Ehrenhalt’s WSJ review of Matthew Continetti’s new book, The K Street Gang:

the Republican scandals of the past decade were scandals of a special kind, perpetrated by political activists whose common characteristic was disdain for government of all forms, at all levels. It was Grover Norquist, Mr. Abramoff’s longtime ally, who became famous for vowing to make government so small that he could “drown it in a bathtub.” Mr. Abramoff expressed similar sentiments.
If one truly believes that — believes that public enterprises essentially amount to coercion and theft — then it is only a small step to deciding that, since the money in the federal Treasury doesn’t belong there, one might as well liberate some of it and get rich in the process. This is what Mr. Abramoff and his associates believed, and this is what they did.

Me: This has been bugging me ever since. Like John, I’ve liked Ehrenhalt’s work in the past. He’s got a keen historical eye and he’s a gifted writer. And that’s why this broadside bothers me so much: it’s so ahistorical. As John noted, Ehrenhalt’s saying that if you believe in limited government you’ve already made a big stride toward endorsing theft. Where’s the evidence for this? Sure, you can say the K Street Gang is exhibit A. But what proof is there that it was their libertarianism that made them steal? Aren’t sins such as theirs peppered across the ideological spectrum?

Ehrenhalt seems desperate to indict a set of ideas by saying that universal human failings are more likely to be represented among conservatives. As a matter of debate, I could make a much stronger case, I think, that it’s the exact opposite. First of all, if you think taxation is theft, you’ve probably got a pretty highly developed moral sense already. Moreover, one could argue that corruption of this sort arises more naturally among people who believe that it was never the taxpayer’s money in the first place, and the government is entitled to as much of their money as it can get; it’s all “the government’s money” anyway. Since so many liberals believe they are naturally and rightfully endowed with the power to run other peoples’ lives, there’s no reason they shouldn’t dip into the company coffers as they feel is best.

But, that’s Op-Edy point-scoring too. What bothers me about Ehrenhalt’s argument is that it’s not rooted in history. The most famously corrupt group in American political history were the machine politicians of New York, Boston and Chicago. Pretty much all of these pols and ward-heelers scoffed at the idea of limited government. So, too, did the carpetbaggers. The scandals in Congress that brought about the Contract with America were nearly all rooted in the sense of entitlement which came with power. The same goes for most of the scandals that emanated from the Clinton White House. And let’s not even discuss Jesse Jackson.

One can argue with all of this, of course. But Ehrenhalt didn’t make an effort to argue. He simply asserted and slandered. And considering how unrelentingly harsh — and at times petty — his review of Continetti’s book was, he shouldn’t pretend to be taking the high road by delivering such a low blow.