MyDD :: The Era Of Small Government Is Over

The Era Of Small Government Is Over

by Chris Bowers, Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:56:46 PM EST

Don't be bashful Democrats. Now, more than any time in the recent past, the country is receptive to the notion of government as a positive influence. Check out this chart from Pew:

Pew's December 2004 survey on political values found moderation in the public's attitudes toward government. Nearly half of all Americans - 45% -- thought government does a better job than it gets credit for; about the same number (47%) said that government is almost always "wasteful and inefficient." There was a similar split over the efficacy of government regulation - 49% believed it is necessary to protect the public interest, while 41% said it does more harm than good.

In a truly bizarre twist, Bush seems to have actually opened the door for a strong, popular articulation of the liberal view of government as a potentially positive force in the life of our nation. As heads explode across the other side of the blogopshere, this is an opportunity we cannot pass up.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Patriot Act (none / 0)

Could you please define, 'big government' for me? Big social programs? Larger control over your lives?

Because I consider the Patriot Act, 'big government.'

by musa on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:52:23 PM EST

That Which Liberates Ultimately Imprisons (none / 0)

The Republcians always say they want to end "big government". The Dems never say they want "big government". I think the size of government is irrelevant in terms of big or small. We just need to have one big enough to have teeth.

Government is neither good nor bad. It's just the instrument to act collectively.

Still, the Pew report can be read two ways. One that Democrat skepticism is growing and is an opportunity for a permanent Republican majority OR that this current faith in government portends rising Dem fortunes. Because Bush was reelected I tend to think the Dems have to realize how important marketing is. This poll indicates the door is open if someone will walk through.

by risenmessiah on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:57:53 PM EST

Beautiful! (none / 0)

The "big government" meme has always been deceitful and overblown. I'm glad it's finally running out of steam. I lived in San Diego for a few years, and can assure you that local governments are just as capable of being corrupt and inefficient as "big government". The Mayor and City Council of San Diego are less responsive to citizen input than the L.A. Mayor and City Council.

Halliburton and Enron have demonstrated pretty conclusively that the private sector is not necessarily more efficient than the government. Democrats would be wise not to mention this poll, but just assume that it defined the new political reality. Don't try to persuade Republicans or conservatives, just act "as if".

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:58:15 PM EST

The nanny state... (none / 0)

Big government and intrusive government go hand in hand if you are talking about a police state.

The analysis that people think the government can be a positive force is not equivilant to people wanting a larger government.

There are many people who are skeptical and suspicious of big government for good reasons. I don't think anyone who is sensible likes the ideas of massive deficits and a govenment that lives well beyond its means.

The conservatives used to want to cut programs and taxes while the democrats wanted to increase taxes to pay for more programs. Now, the republicans are afraid to cut because they want to win (there is that awful partisanship again) and keep their position.

The democrats have a great oppurtunity to be not for big government, but sound government. They should attack the excesses of the republicans' budget and offer something better.

by Christopher Hitchens on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:01:50 PM EST

Re: The nanny state... (none / 0)

Actually, Mr. Hitchens, if that is in fact your name, it has become increasingly apparent to anyone with the eyes to see that the republicans want to increase government spending, targeted to those corporations and "non-profits" that will funnel those funds back to republicans in the way of political contributions. Apparently, this works for them and their political coffers.

To the rest of us, it looks like pillaging.

by T Scheisskopf on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:20:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nanny state... (none / 0)

Ja, Herr Scheisskopf, if that is in fact your real name...

So, the original post is telling us the people like big government. And, the Dem response to the problem pointed out by Herr S. should be... a celebration of big government?

Here's a better idea: somewhat smaller, much sounder government. An end to illegal immigration (see Hitchens's diary and my unanswered comment #27.) A restriction of the nanny state, a restriction of terrorism-and-Bush-sponsored infringements on civil liberties, and fighting against things like omnipresent security cameras.

That would be the way to win. The Republicans under the Bush dynasty won't do it. If the Dems don't do it, expect a third party to do it and at least come close.

The idea that Bush would support big government is not a shocking twist to many; he's basically a liberal with messianic tendencies.

by TheLonewackoBlog on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:44:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nanny state... (none / 0)

No, not a celebration of big government. Real, toothful campaign finance reform that breaks the feedback loop, the conduit that has formed between those who suckle at the government sugartit and the parties, the republican party in particular, because the are so heavily invested in said feedback loop.

And please, enough with the [i]tu quoque[/i]-isms.

by T Scheisskopf on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government (none / 0)

Under Reagan and GW Bush spending represents a greater percentage of Gross Demestic Product than revenue a lower percent of GDP and each year the percent of spending went up about 20% under Reagan and the Bush while revenue went down as a percent of GDP. Under Clinton revenue was a larger percentages of GDP than spending as a percent of GDP and spending as a percent of GDP went down each year under Clinton.

It's not about big or small government it's about the role of government. Republicans just try to spend, spend, spend, and bankrupt the federal government so they can use it as an excuse to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, benifits for Veterans, Public Education, assistance for higher education, the EPA, Clean Air and Water act, the Right to form a Union, and so on and so forth.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:12:00 PM EST

Government OF, BY and FOR - the PEOPLE (none / 0)

shall NOT perish from the Earth!

by ultraworld on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:07:11 AM EST

With the web, we could open all lawmaking (none / 0)

to realtime public scrutiny..

All laws given to lawmakers for review, could also be given to the public via the net, in real time..

There should be government-run blogs for people to input comments, which would become part of the public record..

All lobbyists should be required to make all their presentations to all.. and not behind closed doors..

Thats something almost every sane individual would support...

dont you agree?

by ultraworld on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 12:10:51 AM EST

If the democrats (none / 0)

or the left generally abandon sound government, there will surely be a centrist third party movement in '08 if not '06. There seems to be a disconnect somewhere when people stress repeatedly that they want to win, then advocate positions that currently and historically lead to losing.

Just as only Nixon could go to China, only a Republican can safely run deficits. Why? Because people trust them. Until the democrats can be trusted, they will have an electoral millstone around their necks. How do you earn trust? By acting and speaking consistantly, for one. Also, people are on the alert for democrat deceptions. They won't tolerate a mistake by a democrat, while they let pass egregious sins of the republicans.

I can only speculate why this is, but it is a reality. The democrats have been pounding the fiscal responsibility theme since 1990, why they would quit on the doorstep of a true change in america's psyche is beyond my comprehension: perhaps old habits do die hard.

by Paul Goodman on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:42:28 AM EST

Isn't Big Government Why We Hate Each Other? (none / 0)

Isn't government's expansion the reason that Democrats and Republicans hate each other? With small limited intervention in government you get what you want by providing goods and services that benefit others but in economies with large government you get what you want by becoming an elected official, or by electing someone that will force others to pay for what you want. When Republicans win Democrats complain about how spending is apportioned and vice versa. Without big government the individual determines what causes to put his resources toward. If we didn't pay taxes that would mean you would have more money that you would be responsible for to help the poor, provide for arts programs, do studies on social injustice, or any other thing you felt was important. As is we just fight about how the government should use their resources and whoever wins gets to force people to pay for the things they feel are important. The question is not whether big government is efficient, government can be efficient, but it can rarely be fair.

by Freedom Fighter on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 04:16:23 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.