I have always had a problem with the GOP criticism of "big government" since I believe that it's important with economic equality. But then I hoped at least they are consistent, an oppose a big government in every area. Apparently not....
Let's see - the Republicans oppose big government when it comes to redistribution and helping the poor. But they love it when it's about intruding into peoples personal lives and bedrooms?
That is a strange position to hold.
The thing is, we don't see this as "big government" because the Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) gives the federal government the power to keep us safe from invasion. I have no problem equating the 9/11 attacks as a form of invasion, so protecting us from another terrorist attack easily falls within the original powers granted to the feds. So, since there is no growth in power, there is no "big government."
As for the intruding into people's lives comment, I think the poll itself shows that's a moot point to most Republicans, because we don't feel that is happening on a widespread basis.
That being said, I personally do have a problem with the way the Republican party has grown the federal government way beyond its original scope. In fact, I don't see a whole lot of difference in this regard between Dems and Reps. "Federalism" - what's that?
The thing is, we don't see this as "big government" because the Constitution (Article IV, Section 4) gives the federal government the power to keep us safe from invasion.
Who'da thunk it? After all those years of screaming bloofy murder. Who the hell woulda thunk it?
Well, I guess our interpretations of promoting the general welfare are vastly different, that's all.
is not considered general welfare?
Fiscal conservativism is an ideology of the wealthy. It is not based on reason, but on selfishness. There are many rich liberals supporting health care for all - an unselfish, decent and rational position to hold.
Well, you guys are obviously interpreting the "promoting the general welfare" phrase in a wide-open manner. I am not. Article 1, Section 8 (as Mr. Rosenberg sited above) goes on to explicitly list the powers of the Federal Government concerning promoting the general welfare, and I can't find any mention in there of health care or wages (or education, or social security, etc). And if it ain't specifically listed, then that power belongs to the States, as per the 10th Amendment. That's how I interpret it.
It's not like I think health care, a livable wage, or whatever entitlement you can think of, are bad ideas (so I reject your claim of selfishness); I just don't think the Federal Government has the power to regulate these things. It should be left to the State Governments.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." -James Madison, Federalist No. 45
So personally, I can't reconcile the words of Mr. Madison, or the text of the 10th Amendment with a liberal interpretation of the Federal Government's powers. Of course, I don't really expect you (or probably pretty much anybody on MyDD) to think the same way, and that's just fine. It's not like I believe I am going to sway anyone over to my way of thinking!
You're not making sense. The "big government" criticism was never primarily about whether the government is taking on new powers not granted to it in the Constitution. There's nothing unconstitutional about creating large new bureaucracies under the executive branch, or using tax revenue to fund entitlements, or most of the other things that people who rail against "big government" talk most about.
Furthermore, the Constitution actually explicitly talks about limiting the government's power to intrude on our private affairs and freedoms. There's nothing in the Constitution about keeping the Government out of the business of hiring more people and providing more services.
Well, that's your interpretation; I would completely disagree with that assessment, but that probably wouldn't surprise you.
Mere disagreement does not count.
"Then prove why you are right" it should have said...
Well, I was willing to just chalk it up to differences in opinion and leave it at that, but, since you asked...
I would love to give you "proof." But if I could do that, then certainly someone who is much more of a Constitutional authority than myself would have done so long ago and we would all interpret the Constitution in the exact same manner. Truth is, I can't "prove" it to you, any more than you can prove that your own interpretation is correct. The only thing I can do is provide evidence to support my claim, but I doubt that's going to prove it to you. And that's fine; politics would be pretty boring, if we all thought the same thing, right?
I have a lot of quotes from our Founders I could draw upon, but to be brief, here's just two:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that [quote of the 10th Amendment left out for brevity]. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition." -Thomas Jefferson, 1791 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 19
"...the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. [...] The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state." -Joseph Story, 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution
I would also reference the writings of James Madison in the Federalist Papers #41-46, as well as the quotes I specified in my response to your previous post above. Oh, and a bunch of other quotes by Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton. But, I don't have the space here to do so.
So, did I prove it to you? Yeah, I didn't think so. Oh well, you did ask.
I don't see how any of what you quoted has anything at all to do with what I said; nor do I see how it bolsters your claim that somehow the big difference between government intrusion on personal privacy vs "big government" in economic terms, is that the first one is in pursuit of constitutional ends while the second is outside the bounds of the constitution. That's utter, unadulterated claptrap. That supposed distinction between the two is complete nonsense.
If you want to argue about which powers are supposed to be left for the states vs. the federal government, fine - do it in another thread. It has nothing to do with what the proper role of "government" as a whole is. If all the "anti-big government" conservatives wanted to say is "the states need to provide all these services because the Constitution says the Federal government isn't allowed to", we'd be having some very different debates. That's not what it's a bout.
Note that I'm not even addressing whether you're right or wrong, or what my opinion is, on the specific matters at hand. Whether government should or shouldn't provide the kinds of services that conservatives call "big government". Whether government should or shouldn't intrude on our privacy, or how much, or whether or not that counts as "protecting us from invasion". I'm addressing one thing and one thing only: The supposed distinction between that two that you proposed, on constitutional grounds. It's intellectually vapid.
Hmmm, well, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything about economic terms vs. personal privacy; I personally left that whole topic behind about 10 replies ago. In fact, I never was trying to argue that point. In my original reply to Populism2008, I was just trying to point out that - in my opinion - that authorizing terrorist surveillance falls within the president's Constitutional powers, and therefore, the "big government" tag shouldn't apply.
My next reply was in response to your comments about the constitutionality of creating new bureaucracies, entitlements, services, etc.
As for taking it to a new thread, I was fine with letting this die a long time ago, but Pop08 pushed for the whole proof thing, so I obliged. And because I think the power to create all these new entitlements should be a power of the states and not the feds, I argued it the way I did.
So, sorry for the confusion and the thread creep. And now, I am just fine with letting this whole thing end here.
You're missing the very basic logic here. You said you don't consider intrusions on privacy to be "big government" because they're constitutionally permissible. Obviously we disagree on what privacy intrusions are contitutionally permissible or not, but that's not the point: the point is, the debate about big vs. small government is not and has never been about whether or not the constitution permits things. It's a debate about how much the government should do or not do, including a whole range of choices among things that are permissible.
Remember, the point you initially responded to was about the hypocrisy of opposing "big government" social services, but not opposing it when it comes to intrusion of privacy. You answered that it's not hypocrisy, because the constitution permits intrusion of privacy. Even if that were entirely true... the constitution permits social services too! The constitution restrict how much money government can spend or how many people it can hire or how many agencies it can create, it just creates a structure wherein those kinds of decisions can be made.
You presented a bunch of quotes that don't apply. First of all, they're not from the constitution, and you made no attempt to show how anything in the constitution relates to what you're claiming. Secondly, you concentrate a lot about where the separation between the role of federal and state governments should lie. There's a whole other debate to be had there, but it's a different debate! If you believe that "big government" should be entirely handled by state governments, say so, fine. We can disagree about that. But conservatives who oppose "big government" aren't saying "it's fine for the states to do as much of that stuff as they want, we just don't think the Federal government is allowed to do it". Maybe that's your opinion, personally, but it's not what public debate about big government is about at all. Conservatives who criticize "big government" social spending criticize it on philosophical grounds, and they do so at the state level just as on the federal level.
As a tangent, I should point out that the balance of federal vs. state power shifted fundamentally from 1860 - 1940, after a massive civil war proved the old deal was not successful, and a series of constitutional amendments were passed. So making claims about what the balance was before this big shift, or what people who founded the country intended for it to be, does not automatically give you moral superiority about claims for what that balance ought to be today. But, as I said, this is a tangent. It's an entirely separate debate from the one about conservative hypocrisy that this thread started out with.
1. It's not about what's constitutionally permitted, it's about what government should and should not do, even if it's allowed to.
2. It's not about the separation of roles between state and federal government, it's about the role of "government" in general, at all levels.
3. If there are any constitutional prohibitions that are relevant here, they're the ones that address civil liberties. The Constitution doesn't even hint at prohibiting social services, or defining the size of government.
