I have always hated the world view of uber liberal opinion writer E.J. Dionne Jr. and have never agreed with anything he has written. Until last Friday. And then it is not exactly an agreement, but more a recognition that his argument is good, really good.
His column in the Contra Costa Times, "Utopian impracticality is libertarianism's Achilles heel" (read at http://www.arcamax.com/politics/ejdionnejr/s-1338122) is worth reading. Although he exaggerates his argument, it should still make conservatives think about how we discuss the size and worth of government.
The article discusses big government, what he calls "center left states" based on "welfare states conjoined with market economies" verses "small government or libertarianism" and asks a very good question: "if socialism is discredited by the failure of communists regimes in the real world, why isn't libertarianism discredited by the absence of any libertarian regimes in the world"? He offers the proposition that most "free and prosperous countries" have governments that "consume around 40% of their GDP".
The topic for today is our (conservatives) use of language in discussing government. We will consider his 40% proposition and his conclusion in a later posting.
Today we will consider if we should moderate our criticisms when expressing our disgust at an overly large, out of control government at all levels of society. And no, we should not moderate our anger, our values, our beliefs, but we should moderate our language.
For example, We often fail to express our dislike of large or unlimited government by demanding what appears to be no government. Our language used to discuss the subject implies we see nothing redeemable about any government services. We harm ourselves by exaggerating our view. We are not anarchists.
One practical example will help here. We (Republican Party) are working with the NAACP. We can, and have, shown how the government can oppress the NAACP and people of color. They can show how government benefits both. For example the President of the East Contra Costa NAACP graduated from high school at 17 and enlisted in the Navy, retiring 20 year later with a pension. She then went to work for the County Health Department where, among other duties, she works today on opening an asthma clinic for under served people.
It will be difficult to convince her that government is bad. To do so indiscriminately is to denounce her life. Not a winning debate tactic.
Our mission, our task, is to show her and others in the NAACP that life can and should be better with a smaller government and a robust private sector economy. A robust economy with good, well paying jobs that allows people to pay for health coverage is far better than an excessive nanny government providing someone welfare and a "free" government provided asthma clinic.
We must use language, a more precise argument, that fights for a small government with limited defined responsibilities and services, not one with the excesses we have today.
Agreed...
ReplyDeleteThe first discussion in a debate about how to tax, spend, etc is what is the proper size of government.
To use an personal analogy, each of us made a decision when we purchased or rented a house to constrain the price to that which we thought we could afford. Even though we would like to have the 5000 square foot home with a pool, tennis court, lush grounds, etc we know that we can't afford it and we say that we will spend our $1500 or whatever a month and find the best that we can get for that price.
But we don't often see the discussion of what we can afford in government. I would venture to guess that most conservatives would be OK with a government that confiscated 15% of GDP, some even a bit higher. And that, by the way, is a HUGE number in terms of yearly spending.
And then,only when you have decided how much to spend should you make decision on (1) how to raise that money fairly and (2) how to spend it. Until then, we are all wasting out time
I agree that a federal government at 15% of GDP is far better than a federal government at 24% of GDP, which is where we are today. the federal government was 15-18% of GDP from the end of WWII until 1975 and then stayed over 20% from 1975 until 1997 (Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton). it came down under 20% during Clinton's last couple of years and stayed there until 2006 (20.1%) and 2008 (20.8%), before skyrocketing to 25.2 under Obama.
ReplyDeleteThe revenue/receipts side of this equation is important also. Federal government revenue has averaged 17% of GDP since the end of WWII, thus the deficit in many years. Revenue was higher under Reagan, but spending grew and has been exceptionally low under Obama (15% in 2009, 10, and 11 and 16% in 2012). So, 15% revenue, 24% spending is the massive deficits we are running.
On the issue of the proper size of government, we are losing this argument. It seems everyone wants more government services (and someone else to pay for them). We will not win this battle until we can show that smaller government and a growth economy with fewer taxes and regulations (generating more tax revenue) will make lives better. We "gotta" get busy.