- Joined
- Apr 22, 2019
- Messages
- 47,009
- Reaction score
- 22,902
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
The Soviets had 'big government'. Mao was 'big government'. Basically no one in the US wants that 'big government'.
Everyone in the US wants 'small government', but they have different definitions. And almost everyone wants 'big government' by someone else's standard.
There are 'radical libertarians' who would end practically all taxes and practically all government sending, that less than one percent of the country agree with. Everyone else is 'big government' compared to them.
What, actually, is 'big government'? Many people think they know as they point their fingers at things they don't like.
For some, it's a vague notion of too many, too large government agencies filled with unneeded, overpaid bureaucrats creating too many rules - a mostly emotional definition.
For others, it's programs that reduce poverty and create opportunity.
One of those was Reagan, who argued that if Medicare was created so the elderly had healthcare, it would end freedom in America. Not many agree with that today.
For others, it's the government reducing discrimination - for example, outlawing segregation in public facilities. It's 'big government' to tell a business they can't ban black people.
For others, it's the bloated military budget and military hegemony globally with several hundred military bases.
For others, it's any 'foreign aid' the country gives, no matter how much that aid is actually used to increase American power and is returned to American corporations (a la the 'Economic Hit Man' story).
For others, it's a powerful 'security state', such as illegal wire taps and other monitoring of the American people, such as Bush did, with the support of a lot of self-described 'small government' advocates.
For others, it's the government enabling and helping cause the massively powerful corporate environment we have, corporations over the people.
But basically everyone in America sees some sorts of 'big government' as bad, and supports other types of 'big government'.
So without definition, the phrase becomes not only meaningless, but a dishonest emotional appeal - it 'sounds good' to people and is used to get their support for certain partisans, much like they sell 'fiscal conservatism' or the destruction of our constitution by judges they say follow 'original intent' because that sounds good, accuracy not important.
That's the real purpose of the phrase - to take a phrase everyone supports in some way, and try to say it only applies to your group, that you own 'small government' as a cause and get votes with it, but then define it as convenient to fit your quite possibly corrupt agenda.
Ironically, now, even in a place there is 'big government', China, it's helping them become the future dominant country in the world, the leader in the industries in the future including Quantum computing, Green Energy, and Artificial Intelligence, and global investment, while the US does not invest in those industries in the name of 'small government'. It'll make us smaller, as our economy and power suffer.
Everyone in the US wants 'small government', but they have different definitions. And almost everyone wants 'big government' by someone else's standard.
There are 'radical libertarians' who would end practically all taxes and practically all government sending, that less than one percent of the country agree with. Everyone else is 'big government' compared to them.
What, actually, is 'big government'? Many people think they know as they point their fingers at things they don't like.
For some, it's a vague notion of too many, too large government agencies filled with unneeded, overpaid bureaucrats creating too many rules - a mostly emotional definition.
For others, it's programs that reduce poverty and create opportunity.
One of those was Reagan, who argued that if Medicare was created so the elderly had healthcare, it would end freedom in America. Not many agree with that today.
For others, it's the government reducing discrimination - for example, outlawing segregation in public facilities. It's 'big government' to tell a business they can't ban black people.
For others, it's the bloated military budget and military hegemony globally with several hundred military bases.
For others, it's any 'foreign aid' the country gives, no matter how much that aid is actually used to increase American power and is returned to American corporations (a la the 'Economic Hit Man' story).
For others, it's a powerful 'security state', such as illegal wire taps and other monitoring of the American people, such as Bush did, with the support of a lot of self-described 'small government' advocates.
For others, it's the government enabling and helping cause the massively powerful corporate environment we have, corporations over the people.
But basically everyone in America sees some sorts of 'big government' as bad, and supports other types of 'big government'.
So without definition, the phrase becomes not only meaningless, but a dishonest emotional appeal - it 'sounds good' to people and is used to get their support for certain partisans, much like they sell 'fiscal conservatism' or the destruction of our constitution by judges they say follow 'original intent' because that sounds good, accuracy not important.
That's the real purpose of the phrase - to take a phrase everyone supports in some way, and try to say it only applies to your group, that you own 'small government' as a cause and get votes with it, but then define it as convenient to fit your quite possibly corrupt agenda.
Ironically, now, even in a place there is 'big government', China, it's helping them become the future dominant country in the world, the leader in the industries in the future including Quantum computing, Green Energy, and Artificial Intelligence, and global investment, while the US does not invest in those industries in the name of 'small government'. It'll make us smaller, as our economy and power suffer.
Last edited:
