Size Does Matter
No this isn't about the new Godzilla movie coming out next year, although it is looking quite amazing so far. This is about a sort of mis-characterized debate that has gone on in our government for a long time; big government versus small government.
The old contention is that the Democratic Party is the party of big spending, big government, where the size of government is at its largest and government is deeply involved in everything you do. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is the party of small government, where government is as invisible and as little involved as possible.
However, neither adage is right. At least, they aren't anymore.
There was a time long ago when this was in fact a central part of the platform of the two parties in substance, not just a claim batted about by pundits and attack ads. The founding of the United States was based around this very principle, of how much power the federal government would have. Hand in hand with power is responsibility. That is to say, when you have responsibilities given to you, you are automatically imbued with a certain power greater than that of the one who gave you that responsibility, or at the very least recognized as being someone who potentially has that power.
The struggle between big and small government is a necessary one. Government grows large predominantly because it is asked to handle things which are too much for anyone else to handle. Private industry sometimes can't handle the needs of the nation. It lacks either the will, the resources, or the organization. This gets into another classic argument of public versus private, but we'll skip that for right now.
It is in this vein, however, that the modern debate arises. In the earliest days of our nation, the government lacked the ability to do much that individuals or a small group of individuals couldn't do themselves quicker or better. The federal government lacked power and lacked trust, therefore people did things on their own. In time, however, the challenges the citizens faced, and the country as a whole faced, were too great to be handled without some help from the government.
That's partly how we got to where we are today. It is still the case that there are certain things that the federal government can do that would be too much to ask for the private sector to do itself. Despite the rhetoric used by some politicians, that fact remains true.
Both parties know it. the debate, the argument, isn't really about size. The word choice of the "size of government" is meant precisely to evoke an automatic response. Everyone, or most people, dislike the idea of big government. But what the two parties are usually arguing about is what the exact details of the role will be.
Neither party has really done much to make government any smaller. Much of this has to do with the fact that despite the need for government's increased role, we as a public in general don't trust government as much as we used to, and don't like to pay more for stuff. It costs more to do more, but that means needing more in taxes. Various scandals and bad decisions by the federal government over the last several decades, exacerbated by the last couple Congress' has further eroded that trust in government.
So, that all means that the rhetoric of big government versus small government will ramp up fairly soon with the mid-term elections next year and the 2016 election cycle after that. But remember - they're not really arguing about how to make government smaller or save you money in the long term, but on what exactly to spend the money on.
The old contention is that the Democratic Party is the party of big spending, big government, where the size of government is at its largest and government is deeply involved in everything you do. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is the party of small government, where government is as invisible and as little involved as possible.
However, neither adage is right. At least, they aren't anymore.
There was a time long ago when this was in fact a central part of the platform of the two parties in substance, not just a claim batted about by pundits and attack ads. The founding of the United States was based around this very principle, of how much power the federal government would have. Hand in hand with power is responsibility. That is to say, when you have responsibilities given to you, you are automatically imbued with a certain power greater than that of the one who gave you that responsibility, or at the very least recognized as being someone who potentially has that power.
The struggle between big and small government is a necessary one. Government grows large predominantly because it is asked to handle things which are too much for anyone else to handle. Private industry sometimes can't handle the needs of the nation. It lacks either the will, the resources, or the organization. This gets into another classic argument of public versus private, but we'll skip that for right now.
It is in this vein, however, that the modern debate arises. In the earliest days of our nation, the government lacked the ability to do much that individuals or a small group of individuals couldn't do themselves quicker or better. The federal government lacked power and lacked trust, therefore people did things on their own. In time, however, the challenges the citizens faced, and the country as a whole faced, were too great to be handled without some help from the government.
That's partly how we got to where we are today. It is still the case that there are certain things that the federal government can do that would be too much to ask for the private sector to do itself. Despite the rhetoric used by some politicians, that fact remains true.
Both parties know it. the debate, the argument, isn't really about size. The word choice of the "size of government" is meant precisely to evoke an automatic response. Everyone, or most people, dislike the idea of big government. But what the two parties are usually arguing about is what the exact details of the role will be.
Neither party has really done much to make government any smaller. Much of this has to do with the fact that despite the need for government's increased role, we as a public in general don't trust government as much as we used to, and don't like to pay more for stuff. It costs more to do more, but that means needing more in taxes. Various scandals and bad decisions by the federal government over the last several decades, exacerbated by the last couple Congress' has further eroded that trust in government.
So, that all means that the rhetoric of big government versus small government will ramp up fairly soon with the mid-term elections next year and the 2016 election cycle after that. But remember - they're not really arguing about how to make government smaller or save you money in the long term, but on what exactly to spend the money on.
Comments
Post a Comment