I’m hoping that some of you savvy politicos can explain something for me. One of the hallmarks of the Liberal versus Conservative fight is the argument that the federal government should be big versus small. The popular notion is that the Republican party universally would shrink the government and the Democrats would grow it.
I understand that this is essentially an extension of the “States Rights” logic. Pubs think that pretty much everything short of national defense should be addressed at the State level. Democrats are traditionally more comfortable with the equality that national programs provide. These are both valid and rational arguments.
However, in my lifetime I’ve witnessed a Reagan presidency and 2 Bush presidencies and in both cases the idea of “small government” is laughable. Republican presidencies have massively grown the military and national defense spending. They have generated massive levels of national debt. They have generally supported a greater reach into the homes of families and the personal lives of Americans through the Patriot Act and various forms of Religion inspired legislation. Yet, they somehow get labeled as the “small government” party to this day.
There are numerous differences between the GOP and Dems but it seems that the concepts of a big versus small government seem to be outdated and no longer relevant.
Only since the late 60’s. Traditionally it was the exact opposite. Democrats were the “states rights” party and the Repulicans supported a more centralized government.
An atheist, or even just not explicitly religious Republican who sticks to his word is pretty much my dream candidate. As you might guess, I’m voting Democrat again this year.
The small government thing won them lots of votes when Reagan said government is not the solution to your problems, government IS the problem. So they keep paying lip service to it without doing anything about it. Just like abortion. My pro-life Democrat aunt says to all my pro-life Republican aunts that Bush has not stopped one abortion since he’s been in office. You’d think a similar line about Bush (or Reagan, for that matter) not shrinking the federal government would shut up a lot of conservatives but you’d be wrong.
Most people believe the intersection of “what they are told” and “want they want to believe”. Truth has to be very loud, very clear, and very obvious to get past that - and sometimes it doesn’t even then.
The Republican Party primarily exists to serve the interests of big business and wealthy individuals. But since corporations can’t vote and the wealthy are a tiny minority the Republican Party has to look elsewhere to find votes.
They get the votes by pandering to two main constituencies: The fundamentalists and the libertarians. Call them the Mike Huckabee and the Ron Paul wings of the party. The Huckabee wing is mobilized by social issues … abortion, homosexuality, flag burning, etc. The Paul wing is mobilized by promises of lower taxes and smaller government.
Both those constituencies are being suckered. When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency they didn’t outlaw abortion and they didn’t shrink the government. Sure they’ll throw an occasional sop to the fundies and the libertarians to keep them from wising up, but most of the talk about culture wars and states rights is just hot air to get out the vote.
This is an honest question, even though I know it will most likely be inflammatory. Wasn’t “state’s rights” originally code for “we won’t tell you what to do with your negro problem,” and part of the infamous Southern Strategy?
Yes, it was after 1964 that the parties’ positions reversed. Prior to that there was good ol’ Strom Thurmond running on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948 and doing pretty well considering that their only position was segregation, John Stennis of Mississippi, and a few other notable examples in the “Solid South”. Racism was a hallmark of Democrat strategy. It reversed dramatically when LBJ managed to force the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress in addition to a few major Supreme Court decisions.
Well, they’ve pretty much already started the leftist threadshitting. I’ll think about whether I want the heartache that will come of posting something.
Since Reagan they have talked about big government and tax and spend dems. It reeks because every repub admin has built a huge national debt and increased the size of government. They say it now and say it loud. It is not true. But with some it still has traction.
So you choose to threadshit yourself as opposed to elevating the content of the discussion? Feel free to answer the OP and ignore the off-topic responses.
Attacking either Reagan or his legacy of an enlarged federal government bureaucracy isn’t likely to score many political points. Democratic presidents in the past 20 years or so haven’t exactly been very keen on shrinking government and instead tend to promise dozens of new programs and initiatives each year (as have Republicans). Attacking the Republicans for doing the same thing isn’t really going to win over any voters who wouldn’t already have voted Democratic.
And despite the contempt a few feel towards Reagan and whatever his true impact on the Cold War was, he’s dead now and he’s likely still remembered fondly by a majority of Americans regardless of party affiliation.
Thank you, Airman. I thought that the Republican party’s original support for state’s rights was largely due to political considerations related to race relations, but I wasn’t sure if there were, at the time, substantial other issues that led to Republicans being the champions of that cause. I think it’s safe to say that regardless of origin, the issue has evolved beyond its original scope. Certainly, as you point out, neither party can claim to being immune to using race as a divisive issue.
But, as it relates to the OP, today’s Republican Party is still seen more as the supporter of state’s rights in federal contests. Is it more appropriate to say that this position is the evolution of found political advantage in portraying itself as have taken a principled stand toward more local government, or that there is principled support behind this position? If the latter, how can one resolve the party’s stated position with actions in office? As the OP points out, the role of the federal government doesn’t shrink under Republican rule.
ETA: Because I didn’t explicitly point it out: I am assuming that any argument for a shrinking federal government is an argument for an expanding role of state or local government.
I see no choice but to surrender the ship on this one. When in control the Republicans have failed to utterly to live up to their ethic here.
On the bright side when Democrats are in control and want to do something that costs money it becomes an uncompromising principle on which we will not yield.
What you do is this. You look at it like that picture that looks like a skull, but when you keep staring at it it turns into a beautiful lady staring in a mirror.
Hold it at arms length, take off your glasses, and apply a strong revisionist squint, than the hypocrisy fades and all you see is the lady.
I don’t really see McCain redeeming our honor on this issue which is one reason I won’t be upset if Obama wins.
I was reading somewhere (Hell, it may have been here) that the Republicans are still running on the ‘help us change/get rid of the Big Government/Tax and Spend Democrats’, even though they have held the Presidency for 20 of the last 28 years, controlled Congress from 1995 to 2007, and have 7 of 9 of the Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican presidents. What more do they want?
Thats why Bush and the repubs push the NRA and try to scare them into thinking the dems will take their guns.
Last election they made a huge deal about gay marriage. I see no evidence they ever really planned on doing anything, They just tried to rouse a few more voters on a flimsy scary thread.
The beauty of it is they convince so many to vote against their own best interests. It works.