Is Smaller Government Better Government?

[AuntiePinko]

Hi Auntie Pinko!

I am befuddled by a conundrum in conservative thinking. Stephen Colbert hinted at this situation in his comment at the Correspondents' Dinner concerning "the government that governs best is one that governs the least."

As an ex-conservative, I can't reconcile how my former compatriots can repeatedly assert that government can't do anything right when it comes to such critical domestic issues as health care, environmental regulation, energy planning, public education, or other vital domestic matters. However, they maintain that this same otherwise hapless government can do no wrong when it tries to do these same things in Iraq.

Please tell me, as Reagan might have put it, "government IS the problem" no matter what, except when it comes to Bush's decision to invade Iraq and his subsequent management of the situation there?

Thanks for your help. This has me really perplexed.

Sincerely,

Brian G.
Delray Beach, FL


Dear Brian,

Liberals and conservatives differ in their views of what functions are ‘appropriate’ for a central government. Liberals have traditionally regarded government as a tool for people to use in building a strong social and physical infrastructure as well as ensuring security. The classic conservative view would leave the social infrastructure and much of the physical infrastructure up to non-government forces or local governments, and concentrate on ensuring security through sound fiscal and foreign policy, and a strong (but small) military infrastructure.

A quick look around today will reveal that there are darn few ‘classic’ conservatives alive and well in the Republican Party. One large contingent wants the GOP to become the Party of Social Engineering, legislating against everything which conflicts with their sectarian views. Another major segment seems hell-bent on re-making the world to their ideal of an unfettered capitalist oligarchy, and Republican elected officials appear to think the only way they can stay in office is by dealing bigger and better pork handouts to their constituencies and special interests, at the expense of the nation’s financial stability. The one thing they all seem to agree on is that trash-talking government is the best way to unite these various widely-differing agendas and make them appear “conservative.”

Government may indeed govern best when it governs least, but for a country to function at all, government must not only preserve national security from foreign threats and maintain order domestically, it must arbitrate differences among various domestic interest groups, deal with crises and natural disasters of all types, and ensure the infrastructure of resources that will support its economy. Nations with a larger, more heterogeneous citizenry, more complex economy, and a wider range of risks for natural disasters, etc., will need larger, more complex governments to fulfill these functions. The idea of a Federal government “small enough to drown in a bathtub” is an attractive but toxic little fantasy that keeps Americans from dealing with an unpleasantly challenging reality.

Both liberals and conservatives, at varying times, have been guilty of wishful thinking and magical fantasizing. We really want to believe that it’s possible to overcome human nature by enforcing “better” rules through how we structure our government, tax system, foreign policy, etc. The truth is that human nature encompasses greed and self-interest, but also altruism and idealism. A good government structure is one that protects us from the worst excesses at both ends, minimizes the harm that the inevitable lapses will cause, and provides us with the security to experiment creatively and meet new challenges flexibly.

Americans need to confront the changing geophysical and geopolitical realities of the twenty-first and the approaching twenty-second centuries. We need to discuss our priorities as the forces that shaped our past melt away. Our geopolitical reality is no longer shaped by two opposing superpowers, a Europe and Asia in recovery from two devastating wars, and a colonialized Third World. Our geophysical reality is no longer defined by unlimited access to fossil fuels, barriers of time and distance in communications, and homogenous populations with entrenched, rigid, widely varying social and cultural norms and language barriers. In the face of these changes, what do we need from a central government, and what will it cost? How will we pay for it?

Until liberals and conservatives both can put aside ideological rigidity and knee-jerk assumptions based on old realities, that conversation will revolve endlessly, nibbling around the edges, mired in costly minutiae. Conservatives must come to terms with reality: “Small” government cannot possibly meet even the most basic needs and priorities of our nation in this new century. Liberals, too, must confront the reality that too large a government will falter and fail under its own weight and the natural tendency of bureaucracies to calcify and metastasize.

Auntie Pinko believes this will inevitably lead to a government with a larger role as rule-maker, regulator, and enforcer, and a much smaller role as provider. Conservatives have been trying to eliminate both functions, liberals want to increase both functions. Neither will be able to have it all their way. But we won’t get anywhere at all until we agree that participation and compromise from both sides will be necessary to reconstruct the sad shambles Mr.Bush’s reign of wishful thinking, cupidity, and incompetence will leave behind. Sorry I couldn’t be more encouraging, Brian, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

[joemurphy]

1. Somalia seems to have no government. But look at Somalia.

[Mz Pip]

2. I'd rather have a large

benevolent government than a small mean spirited one. But I don't think that's really a choice anymore.

I have never believed that there is a government solution for every problem out there and am somewhat cynical about government involvment in a lot of things. The government tends to screw things up because things end up costing more, taking longer and not ending up doing what was originally intended.


But the private sector doesn't fair much better.

So I don't really have a solution. Well, I do but it involves having honest compassionate people in charge of both the government and of the private sector. Like that will ever happen. Sigh.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[TheFarseer]

3. What those people are missing

is that if there is no strong government, then something will fill the void. In the middle ages, feudal lords filled the void along with the Catholic church. They were in effect the government. Now, corporations will fill the void if there is no strong central government. We don't like the government telling us what to do, but is it any better to have corporations tell us, "either work for this wage or we'll find someone who will." "You're either going to drink out of the river we polluted or buy bottled" Frankly, the government isn't perfect, but I'd rather have politicians that are at least accountable on election day than corporations who are accountable only to shareholders that are just prodding them to pollute more and outsource more etc etc.

[PurgedVoter]

4. Is this the real Auntie Pinko?

I have always enjoyed the Auntie Pinko articles. They have, in the past, shown quality and concise thought. Not this one.

This article falls right into the 'liberal=big government' hole of thought. It also falls into the 'liberal=more laws' hole too. This is quite interesting thinking, and quite common thinking, but it is unsupportable by history or logic.

It is fair to say that liberals tend to regulate industry and conservatives tend to incarcerate people. As far as the big government question goes, conservatives spend more, get further in debt, and build more prisons.