Skip to main content

Big Gubmint for its own sake

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said in a speech on the floor Tuesday that “too often, it seems, Democrats in Washington claim to be interested in helping those in need, when what they really seek is to protect big government.”

I hear this a lot from my conservative friends, and I guess my question is: To what end? Why would we love big government if not as an ends to helping those in need?

Conservatives value small government for its own sake--they believe smaller government produces more liberty. I think that's an insight worth considering, frankly. But some of my conservative friends (like Mitch McConnell above) seem to then assume the inverse is true: Liberals want Big Government because, well, we really love Big Government.

It doesn't really make sense. The truth is that lots of liberals really do want to help the less-fortunate, and see government programs and regulation as the best way to do so. There's nothing tricky about it, no love of government for government's sake.

Comments

Ben said…
McConnell assumes too much, I think, and you might be assuming too little. All of those programs you love so much require people to administer them -- accountants, lawyers, clerks, researchers, dreaded "compliance officers" and the like. To cut those programs would require shedding tens, hundreds, even thousands of those people, many of whom are union members, to say nothing of the fact that they probably have families, homes, car payments, etc. How could we possibly let them go? Part of limiting government is limiting the number of government employees. And as we've seen in recent weeks, job protection is not an insignificant issue. I think that's what McConnell is getting at.

(Captcha: "shamit". Seems like that should have an exclamation point at the end.)
namefromthepast said…
Big government simply is not capable, or has proven ineffective, serving as an end to effectively helping those in need.

By default the only thing delivered is big government, less liberty, and empty promises.

Therefore it appears that all democrats seek and defend big government.
Rick Henderson said…
And, Joel, there are some liberals who "love" Big Government to the extent that they believe a large, intrusive regulatory state is a superior way to organize society. They may not see it as intrusive, but it is what it is. You may not fully share that value system, but it's hard to deny the role the bureaucratic state plays in "progressive" public policy.

Captcha: tordis. Bastardized Dr. Who?
namefromthepast said…
One more thing and then I'll be done.

Something that irritates me is liberals always refering to "those less-fortunate" like in this post. Sorry Joel.

This would infer that all that don't take handouts are merely lucky. Like making responsible decisions about life, working hard, etc, doesn't enter in to it.

Some did get bad breaks but not all.

Some who aren't getting handouts got bad breaks and overcame them and that's not luck. I feel refering to it as fortunate diminishes their accomplishments.

Had to say it. Now I'll take a deep breath and have a cold beer.
Notorious Ph.D. said…
One thing that always seems to get left out in this debate is the fact that not just the poor benefit from government assistance. Ignoring this has allowed some commentators to blame poverty on subsidy, and to recommend pulling government aid entirely – with the exception of middle-class entitlements such as social security, government-subsidized student loans, and home-mortgage tax deductions. These last three are all "big government" programs that the middle class is built on.

None of us do it alone.
Rick Henderson said…
Left-liberals are intellectually lazy if they assume there would be no (or a much smaller) middle class without gov't student loans, the home-mortgage deduction, Social Security, etc. These programs had a very modest effect until the 1970s.

(The biggest impact may have been the G.I. Bill, which is a government program, but also was offered as a payment of sorts to those who served in the military. I don't consider that welfare.)

If middle-class entitlements were eliminated, government could shrink dramatically ... and the middle class would survive, perhaps thrive.
Rick Henderson said…
I also find it telling that someone would defend the continuance of a massive federal state because the middle class (rather than the poor) needs it.

That mind-set is why we're in such a fiscal hole.
KhabaLox said…
"None of us do it alone."
Excellent point Notorious. And let's not forget corporate farms and energy producers/deliverers.

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…