|
For many decades, the right in America has been preaching along one tired line: big government is bad, state and local government is good. This line developed a very long time ago, probably from the era of Herbert Hoover and the end of the Republican progressive movement that was carried out by Teddy Roosevelt early in the 20th century. The Republicans stick with this line, year after year, never bothering to explain or expand on their beliefs.
The line appeals to the old south, because the resentment the south felt about losing the Civil War and then being occupied by “Yankees” was passed down from generation to generation. People in the old southern states still refer to people from “the North” as Yankees, even though most of them probably have no idea why. (The term means “little Dutchman”, but it was applied to everyone from the northern states who went south after the Civil War to profit from the disaster.) Bashing government also works in the far western states, especially northwestern states east of Washington state, where resentment of the role of the Federal government runs very deep in states where up 70% or more of the land is actually owned, and controlled, by the government.
We Americans generally have a ready resentment for things that are big, especially if we think they are too big. The aforementioned progressive movement in the Republican party early in the 20th century was mainly an effort to curb big business on the idea that it was taking over the country and stood a chance of ruining our democracy. Big was bad, so that idea has stuck with us too. The railroads were taking the lion share of profits away from the farmers, the banks had their thumbs on small business and utilities were often charging whatever rate they could get away with. Something had to change and it did.
Perry and others concentrate on attacking the national government now. Why, one must ask, is the national government so bad in the eyes of the right when state and local governments have more day to day power and can do things just as bad or worse, like putting to death someone who is innocent and accused of a major crime? Why, indeed. The Perry program of requiring pre-teen girls in Texas to get inoculated against certain sexually transmitted infections is one example. Why is it wonderful for a state government to take such an action, but an outrage for the national government to do so?
There is no good explanation. At base, it boils down to the fact that certain regions of the country, and a lot of people, resent what the national government does. They see government as evil because it does things they don’t like, while, in other regions, the same programs might be applauded and see as absolutely necessary. In short, Perry hates the national government because it won’t do only what he wants it to, things that don’t benefit his state or with which he disagrees. (In fact, Texas gets more back, dollar or dollar, in tax money than it sends to Washington and the state has benefited enormously from Federal programs.)
BIG GOVERNMENT doing things of which Perry and his clan approve is just fine, thank you. Billions to trillions of dollars on the defense establishment? No prob. Billions of dollars in farm subsidies paid out every year? Cool enough. Federal subsidies for roads and highways? Same deal. Anything they like is not to be questioned. They want to cut out what they don’t like and have the national tax dollars boost those programs they do. Simple.
This is a rank political and benefits argument disguised as one of principle. Texas would be lost if the national government were reduced to a nub. The progress and growth in the state has come from many sources, most of them related to actions taken in the past by Washington, DC: military bases, the space program, technology development, the building of national rail systems, the creation of the Interstate Highway System, the building of major airports and on and on.
That’s the deal: get what you want from the Federal government and when it appears you don’t need it as much, attack it so that no one else gets the same benefits your state got beforehand. State and local governments are not all good. They possess powers of taxation equal to or greater than the Federal government. They run police departments that can turn citizen’s lives into nightmares when they overstep their powers and duties. Because the voters insist on it, they also have the power of life and death over accused criminals. State and local governments make mistakes, too, but those mistakes usually aren’t as big because they operate on a smaller basis.
“Limited government” is a slogan searching for definition. Most Americans want government services, but we haven’t really come to terms with what it takes to get them. In most cases, the national government stepped in to try to solve problems that weren’t being fully addressed on the state level. One can argue that doing so takes away future opportunities to resolve problems, but, in most cases, the state and local governments were more than happy to turn some of their messes over to Washington, DC.
It is hard to have respect for people who call themselves conservatives when they won’t say what it is they are trying to conserve, who have apparently unlimited desire to build military power and see it used around the world, who believe that unborn babies should be protected, but fully grown adults should be put to death, whether or not they have had adequate legal representation or who are suffering from acute mental illness, all the while favoring torture as official policy, something the US has not officially tolerated in his history.
The principles of conservative thought have merit, but not when they are used as cover for other objectives. It is, indeed, possible for government to grow too big, to take too much and to interfere in our daily lives. State and local governments can do that, too, and often have done so. Corporations, which are becoming the defacto rulers of American lives, can also grow too big and too powerful, but if the Federal government should be downsized and intimidated, there will be no good counter to the power of corporations.
America, lost in a deep recession and upset over government bailouts for the rich and powerful, is now facing a new, radical group of Republicans and tea party groups who want nothing less than to rip to shreds the political and governmental consensus by which the country has operated for many decades. (See the WashPost op ed below.) This radicalism has articulated no program of its own, other than taking apart that which has been successful and helped to make the US a nation admired around the world for its success in government, business and energetic culture. The idea of the far right is to harness America’s anger to achieve the destruction of the national government.
Doug Terry, 9.15.11
|
|
