There are a lot of people that seem to complain about government and say that it should be smaller, collect less taxes, etc and that people should be individually responsible.
Now surely there are just as many people on the other side who, like me, believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to address social issues and that we should work toward Sanders-esque ways of progressive taxing and having universal healthcare and tuition-free college.
But this side seems much less vocal at least. I seem to hear much less people actually saying that they favor “big government” or that we shoud pay more in taxes.
Is it a silent majority thing or are there actually less people that are fiscally liberal?
For the same reason that there don’t appear to be any people who are Anti-Life or Anti-Choice.
“Big government” is a derogatory term loaded with the flavor of a lumbering bureaucratic organization that takes most of your paycheck in taxes then wastes it on programs to help freeloaders. Nobody wants big government.
On the other hand, plenty of people want rich people and mega-corporations to pay their fair share of taxes; plenty of people want an efficient single-payer healthcare system where basic healthcare is seen as a fundamental human right, not a privilege enjoyed only by the wealthy; a strong well-funded military with adequate veterans’ benefits; good schools with tax breaks and subsidies so that we can all afford to send our kids to college; a research budget to restore our position at the forefront of science and technology; a modernized transport infrastructure.
Right, virtually no one wants everything big. So while I want universal Medicare and basic income, I have no interest in a massive civil liberties suppressing national security state. A conservative might want the opposite.
Not everybody agrees with this. Some people, like libertarians, believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to protect people’s rights. Period. Before you can decide what a government should do, you first have to decide why we need a government in the first place.
It’s due to decades of propaganda about government being evil, especially “big government”. Remember Reagan and his line that “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?
“Big Government” like “Wasteful Spending” is a vague term designed so you can imagine whatever you want into it. The “big” part of government is whatever part of government you personally oppose. So a politician can take a stand against “Big Government” without taking an actual stand.
Government never gets big because of people saying, “let’s have more government”. It gets big because people say, “let’s do X”, where X is “make better schools” or “attack a country” or “build a wall” or “improve health care”. But at least some people like all of those Xs, so saying “let’s not do X” to any of them is going to lose you votes in a way that “let’s make government smaller” won’t.
Because everyone thinks that the government should do what it is good at, and get out of what it is bad at. If it only did that, then we wouldn’t have to grow government and the world would be perfect.
Of course, it’s the other guy who’s in favor of big government because they want the government to be some sort of nanny state, involving itself in things it shouldn’t be involved in.
There are of course the rare creatures who don’t want the federal government involved in anything. But not a whole lot who think it should be involved in everything.
Because government is imperfect and the bigger it gets the more imperfection we will have. People will generally object to bigger anything that they don’t own and control. There’s something wrong with anyone who wants bigger government in general even if they think some particular aspect of government should grow. The biggest governments have been totalitarian. The objection to big government is not something new. Frankly, I can’t understand why the OP asks the question.
People want good government services and low taxes. Since low taxes result in poor government services and high taxes result in poor government services, we tend to default back to low taxes. Generally, if programs work people like them and if they don’t or waste a lot of money for a small benefit, people won’t like them.
I’d also note that people’s willingness to pay tends to result in smaller government. You can’t really move Tax Freedom Day past late April. Americans won’t accept European levels of taxation. So that makes us functionally a small government nation regardless of what services citizens would like to have.
“Propaganda” would include dystopian literature, like 1984, in which an oppressive government controls every aspect of life, as well as real-world accounts of dysfunctional countries like the Soviet Union.
“Bigger” government is more powerful government, and throughout its history the USA has been all about distrusting and limiting the power of the federal government.
Because people in favor of wanting to adopt more social programs/entitlements aren’t thinking about it in terms of increasing the size of the government. And anyway, even if they were thinking about governmental size changing in response to what they want, why would they feel the need to state they’re in favor of it? If they tell you that they want to create new programs to do x,y, and z, they know you understand this will create new governmental agencies because that’s how it works - no need to tell you that this stuff they want will increase the size of government if you are capable of grasping that on your own.
I think bigger actually is better when it comes to peaceful coexistence. Take Europe as an example. Now that we have the EU and NATO (yes I realize NATO isn’t a government) Europe is more peaceful than it has been in millennia. The last time Europe was this peaceful was back during the reign of Hadrian and Trajan when the Roman Empire was at it’s strongest. North America is also a good example. We have three large nations that coexist peacefully. Imagine an alternate history where the USA didn’t form and was limited to the east coast. Imagine the interior of the country divided up into several sovereign nations ruled by Native Americans and a separate country of California on the west coast. I think we would have had wars in North America during the 20th century in that type of scenario. Then their is the UN, which also contributes toward world peace rather than world war.
Actually, we face a choice. We can all either have a government that responds to the will of the people, or we can all be wholly-owned subjects of the Koch brothers and their ilk.
I can vote in the first case; I can’t in the second. The government must be more powerful than the things it seeks to control. A libertarian “government” is simply a free-fire zone for fatcats. With us (hint: includes you) as the targets.
Give me big government over that any day. How big does it need to be? Big enough to reign in the fatcats.
And that darn Bill Clinton when he said, “The era of big government is over” during his 1996 State of the Union address. And he calls himself a liberal! Shame, shame!
I didn’t interpret ‘big government’ to mean larger nations. You have some good points, but I don’t think Rome is a great example.
How big is enough is a question. I personally believe the US government is big enough now and needs to be more efficient. It’s certainly arguable but I don’t think that making the government bigger in general is a good idea. Neither is making it smaller simply to satisfy people who think government is inherently bad.