It’s Not the Size, It’s How You Use It

Two of the most abused words in the American lexicon are “small government.” Everyone is in favor of it – or at least claims to be. It’s a time-honored rallying cry of the Republican Party and Democrats will at least feint in that direction when it’s politically necessary or expedient. For a disaffected and angry electorate, they are immensely appealing words, alluringly full of empty promise and backed by bumper sticker rhetoric. In particular, the embittered white base that grudgingly backed Romney in the last election has adopted these words as dogma. But does anybody really want smaller government? All evidence points to the contrary.

Democrat and Republican alike have been quick to expand government – both in terms of the tax dollars it gobbles up and the infringement upon our liberty it imposes – with flagrant disregard for their own rhetoric. While Democrats screamed and cursed and spat about the Bush administration’s overreaching and at times downright unconstitutional notion of national security, they have been conspicuously silent as Obama’s beloved drones patrol the skies, conducting summary executions around the globe – including at least one on an American citizen – and the veil of government secrecy remains as thick and opaque as it did during the Bush years. Republicans, for their part, continuously decry the “reckless spending” of Democrats while practically putting on a clinic in fiscal irresponsibility, and their extremely selective memories allow them to place unpopular government bailouts firmly in Obama’s column, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they began with his predecessor.

The underlying and more insidious deception of the small government gospel, however, is that nobody really wants it yet they still preach it. What people really mean when they say they want “small government” is that they want government that does only and exactly what they like.

Republicans shout from the mountaintops about cutting spending – which is all well and good when it’s couched in terms like “entitlement reform” and “social programs.” However, try to eliminate an expensive, ineffective and unnecessary weapon system from the defense budget, and suddenly we’ve got deep pockets and a grave threat to our national security. Similarly, even those who denounce the “welfare state” and beat their chests about personal responsibility are quick to look for Uncle Sam coming down the street with a bucket when the floodwaters rise. New York Congressman Peter King is a reliably conservative Republican who nonetheless raised holy hell for his own party leadership when Speaker Boehner tried to delay a Hurricane Sandy relief bill. In this case, his anger was justified, but we can only hope he remembers that outrage the next time a poor, majority black city floods.

Admittedly, Democrats are less vocal about small government, tending to be more forthright about their vision of an active and expansive federal government. That does not mean, however, that they don’t redefine that vision easily and often. They want the government to stay out of our personal lives when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, but not so much when it comes to tobacco, sugary drinks and seat belts. And those who favor a pliable interpretation of the Second Amendment when they see the imminent danger posed by certain kinds of guns would be wise to remember that neither was the founders’ original intent etched in stone with the First Amendment, which may prove equally pliable when a different party in power finds equally imminent danger in certain kinds of speech.

Of course, here in Rhode Island, where everyone has a brother-in-law drawing a municipal pension, a sister only two years away from her 30, or a guy who can fix that pothole, we’re just fine with the size of our government. We may be over-taxed, underserved, corrupt and inefficient, but at least we’re not lying to ourselves.