Framing the debate: "Less Government" vs. ... what?

[hiphopnation]

I'm so tired of the right framing the debate this way -- it's a good strategy because the opposite of less government is more government, and the opposite of a conservative is a liberal, and the maddening two dimensional thought that pervades the discourse is, well, maddening. I guess it does highlight a principled difference in liberal and conservative thought -- liberals believe in the common welfare and in subsidizing the state to administer that welfare, especially the less fortunate amongst us, we take heed of the idea that you can measure a society by how well they take care of their most desperate citizens.

It's the false dilemma that is presented by conservatives when they frame their position as anti-big government so that liberals must therefore be pro-big government. So my question is: Is it possible for liberals to be anti-big government too? And if so, why aren't we co-opting that message? In these times of frugality, when everyone is clamping down on unnecessary waste (including Obama), liberals should proudly take over the mantle of being anti-big government, making government more efficient and streamlined. We should steal their message right out from under them, because we can.

All of this was inspired by that 13 yo spouting off nonsense about what it means to be a conservative: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/jonathan-krohn-13-year-ol_n_170642.html

[fasttense]

1. That is a hallmark of current Republiconism, that there is only black and white,

good or evil, free market capitalism or socialism, yes or no. They never seem to find a middle ground. And yet, usually, the middle ground is where the majority of humanity lies. People and societies are giant bell curves, where the middle is the largest group.

The bush, dick and KKKarl have moved the middle to the extreme right and in the process, have destroyed American values and economic prosperity.

[ejpoeta]

2. it's really a false debate. it's not big government vs small government.

we have seen over the last eight years that the republicans are big government too. it's the priorities of the government. spying on americans vs the constitution. power grab vs separation of power. legislating religion vs the constitution. see what i mean. the government was just as big... if not BIGGER. they stuck their nose in anywhere they could and tried to make everyone have to live THEIR 'beliefs'. how is that small government, again?? they DOUBLED the debt. so they didn't tax and spend.... better to borrow and spend, i guess?? how is that less irresponsible than the homeowners that refinanced their homes to remodel the kitchen (as they are blamed for the housing crisis)?

[baldguy]

3. Big government in defense of liberty vs big government in defense of corporatism.

[hiphopnation]

4. right

government is big - get used to it. it's about how you define "big" vs. "small". As another poster points out, gov't was already big under bushies and got bigger, not smaller. it's sound-bite politics that bothers me, they'll spout this shit till their blue. Tax and spend versus small government. A canard, I tell you!

[KharmaTrain]

5. Kleptocracy

Couldn't you tell? This is the end of the "all for me, screw you" era where we were told we were "entitled" to be rich and have the "American Dream". Now that "dream" was always that...something you worked for, not one you were granted. But not according to a repugnican. If they didn't get rich, it's someone elses fault...blame a minority, someone with education, the "librul media"...there's always some boggieman in the way from all those riches the GOOP leaders promise. Since many of them are rich, if you play their game, you should be rich, too. Or that was how this horseshit was sold.

Conservatives aren't "anti-government", but rather they want the government to make them rich. Be it through a nice corporate welfare contract or tax breaks. The concept of social responsibility doesn't exist in their minds as they feel all services are entitlements and not only do they deserve police, fire, schools and roads, but they shouldn't have to pay for them. In their conveluted world, unbridled "capitalism" is the only way to get to those riches and the golden rules apply. Those who have the gold make the rules.

Dare to get one of these asshats into a discussion about "socialism" and be prepared for a big laugh. They only know boggiemen and soundbites...no concept of what the term means.

[hiphopnation]

10. Be it through a nice corporate welfare contract or tax breaks.

add to that: by propping up failing banks

:puke:

[radfringe]

6. the fallacy of "less/smaller government"

the fallacy of the "less/smaller" government is based on the assumption that less/small is better.

it's not a question of the size of government, but rather how competent and effective it operates.

We don't need a larger government or a smaller one - we need a SMARTER government.

There are large and small businesses out there that operate very efficiently and competently, and there are those that couldn't manage themselves out of a paper bag. Size doesn't matter - it's leadership that determines the level of competency and operation.

[hiphopnation]

11. Size doesn't matter

first response to this post with unintentional (???) penis size reference. :rofl:

Seriously, though great post and good thoughts, I totally agree. It is about streamlining it and making it smoother and more efficient, i.e., smarter.

:thumbsup:

[Kip Humphrey]

7. It gets down to "me, my, mine" vs "we, our, ours".

One is self-absorbed, competitive & exclusive; the other is social, cooperative & inclusive.

See post,"The bankruptcy of our hyper-competitive society & the threat of cheese sandwiches for all"

[zbdent]

8. when they say "less government", correct them ...

say "Don't you mean less government involvement in corporations, and more invasion of your private lives, like cell phone calls, credit card history, library records, etc. that you supported under George W. Bush?"

I know ... it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker ...

[hiphopnation]

9. a zinger nontheless

and well stated and phrased. this is exactly the aim of this thread, to kick around appropriate rebuttals to the fallacy.

:thumbsup:

[mrcheerful]

13. Sorry that line of logic doesn't work, they believe theyy have lost no rights

and nothing has changed from pre Reagan days. I have heard then drone on and on about "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" crap. Of course these same nit wits also believe that they don't need lawyers when talking to police.

[zbdent]

15. if they have nothing to hide, and thus nothing to fear ...

why do they fear registering their firearms? They're not criminals, right? They're not committing any criminal acts, right?

You gotta have a license to legally drive a car, right?

[EmilyAnne]

12. Good government?

The people who keep saying that government is the problem seem to be the ones who keep proving it.

[DireStrike]

14. You could point out the advantages of larger government.

- Profit motive is erased. All services provided by the government will cost what it costs to produce them.
- Less corruption. The larger the government is, the harder it is to buy everyone off and the more involved people are. See the nordic socialist democracies.
- Sometimes it's simply needed. When the private sector won't do what the country needs (and why would it? It will only do what makes money), the government is the only thing that will. When this happens, as now, it may need to be larger to do as much as is necessary.