Hey totally! Chesterton's Fence is about not messing with complex systems. Don't change an existing system without first understanding the implications of that change. The subtext is that even if you think you understand the implications, you probably actually don't understand them (since the system is complex) so you just shouldn't make changes at all.
Applied to this scenario, I am saying that the status quo is the result of prior people ignoring this advice and changing a complex system. So the actions in the article are more about correcting this bad change and reimplementing the original fence.
Original fence = smaller, limited Fed gov
New, Bad fence = expansive gov
So the timeline is
Fence #1 exists
Someone removes Fence #1 and builds Fence #2
Someone removes Fence #2, re-builds Fence #1 <--This is where we are today
I understand your interpretation, and I agree with the first part of it. (Don't change an existing system without first understanding the implications of that change.') I think that's the core of the metaphore, as taken by most people.
I don't think the point is that you should never make changes to complex systems at all, though. I don't think its means that more primitive, or unaltered, states of a system are necessarily prefential to more altered states, which I infer from your comment.
If unalterated states were better, we would have to tear Chesterton's fence down — right? Fences don't occur naturally.
Applied to this scenario, I am saying that the status quo is the result of prior people ignoring this advice and changing a complex system. So the actions in the article are more about correcting this bad change and reimplementing the original fence.
Original fence = smaller, limited Fed gov
New, Bad fence = expansive gov
So the timeline is
Fence #1 exists
Someone removes Fence #1 and builds Fence #2
Someone removes Fence #2, re-builds Fence #1 <--This is where we are today