We love smaller government — except when we don’t

ABC this morning discussed a poll that shows some difficulties facing Democrats as they head into the November elections. The numbers show a real anger at incumbents, meaning we could see some seats flip, though it still appears unlikely that either house will flip parties.

Something else caught my eye, however. It was this bit of information:

In another vulnerability for the president, Americans by 56-40 percent said they preferred smaller government with fewer services — almost exactly the average the past 26 years — but by a vast 77-15 percent thought Obama prefers the opposite, larger government with more services. That, plus concerns about the deficit, seem ripe for a 2010 campaign theme for the Republican Party.

People say they want/prefer smaller government. As ABC points out, the numbers have remained pretty consistent since the Reagan administration.

This is not news, nor is it particularly enlightening. Americans are inundated with anti-government rhetoric, and not just from Fox News. They get it from the mainstream stations, as well, it seems anticlimactic that Americans would say they dislike government. As always, the definition of small government is left unstated, as is the impact that shrinking government and cutting services would have on the lives they live.

People want smaller government, but what they really mean is they want it for others and not necessarily for themselves.

Middle class taxpayers want welfare curtailed but yell when their mortgage deductions are cut.

We hate regulations, but when the government fails to ensure that hte hamburger bought at the local store is tainted with e coli, we should loudly and demand action.

We want good schools, well-stocked libraries, police departments with enough manpower to keep us safe. We want roads without potholes, bridges that do not collapse, working traffic lights. We want a safety net when we fall on tough times (though we prefer that it not stretch too far or cover too many people we don’t like).

The Tea Party right now lives the contradiction. This motley collection of angry white folks has been protesting the alleged growth of government under the Obama administration, calling the president a socialist, a communist, a fascist, Stalin, Hitler (as if these terms were interchangeable). But think about what they also say: “Keep government out of my Medicare.”

Just as interestingly, we have the Arizona immigration law, which has support from the Tea Partiers (or most of them), even though it expands police power in the state — and they support harsh restrictions on the border, another expansion of police power.

But that expansion is OK, because the people at the target end of the expansion, are the dark ones, the ones who do not speak English.

As I said, Americans want smaller government — but only on our terms.

Send me an e-mail.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

One thought on “We love smaller government — except when we don’t”

  1. Smaller or limited government is an empty, vague, amorphous, meaningless GOP catch phrase. It sounds good but ultimately is just political gibberish. The GOP has done nothing but increase the size of government while making it less effective by gutting, defunding and crippling the regulatory agencies, such as the agency that overlooks mine safety. Why aren't these mine owners being held criminally liable when there are preventable mine accidents that kill or maim miners? Never mind fines, which they can appeal, these mine CEOs need jail time.We certainly do need more effective, more efficient and corruption free government. Our legislators must be held accountable and we need to get corporate money out of government. Corrupt and corporate owned politicians are a real and serious problem and a threat to our democracy (our representative democracy).Our representatives should wear all the logos and labels of the corporations which they represent, in the fashion of the NASCAR racing drivers. It would be more honest. Corporations own the media, as well.Limited government really means let the corporations run totally amok, even worse than it is now. Limited government really means sock it to the poor, the working poor, the elderly, the disabled and even the middle class. Limited government ultimately means let's return to indentured servants and slavery when the workers knew their place….the bottom.

Leave a comment