The way to fix it is by making government smaller.

[phantom power]

It was clear during the campaign that Obama was reluctant to confront the Reagan legacy on its basic terms, preferring to dryly characterize his governing philosophy as technocratic and competent. I think that was a mistake, since people really have no other framework within which to understand their problems, when things go badly, they have no other way of understanding it except for blaming "big government" for either causing it or failing to fix it.

Today, they may be angry at the banks, but they see the problem being that the government gave these institutions preferential treatment over them rather than that they caused this worldwide economic crisis with their irresponsible, swashbuckling, gambling culture --- which now must be regulated by the government. I think most people see the recession, the banking crisis, unemployment and the rest as only a failure of government --- and they are assuming that the way to fix it is by making government smaller. After all, both Democrats and Republicans keep telling them that it's so.

I'm very glad to see that Obama is finally taking some action against the banks. It is the Democrats' best hope of reframing the debate, although I think it's awfully late in the game. Today, he seemed to sideline Geithner and Summers publicly, but the question is whether or not he's finally figured out that they are part of the problem, not the solution.

I don't think Obama's words alone have enough credibility anymore to fix this. He's going to have to take some concrete action.

And Democrats are going to have to accept that need to attack the Reagan legacy more directly and make an affirmative case for government. I would have thought that was obvious, but the Democratic party and Obama himself seem to have believed otherwise. If they persist with merely tweaking the Reagan legacy, they will find themselves in this same situation over and over again. As long as people see government as the problem, progressivism, liberalism, whatever you want to call it, will fail.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/problem-bu-digby-chris-matthews-with.html

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, let's start with the Department of Defense? eom

[Obamanaut]

4. That could save a bundle. Close all the hundreds of military sites

in all the foreign countries, bring home all the troops and their families (if they have them there.) That immediately saves all the money being spent on leasing the base property.

What equipment cannot be brought home inexpensively, sell to the host nation at a reduced price.

Spread about, all over the US, the troops and their families into the downsized or closed bases. Immediate influx of money into the local economies.

Reduce the number of active duty personnel via normal attrition as their enlistments expire. Reduce recruiting efforts such that only a small percentage of dischargees are replaced.

No longer have the US act as 'police force to the world.' Maintain the active force in sufficient quantity for defense only.

[frazzled]

2. He makes the case against the "smaller government" argument all the time

Digby clearly doesn't listen to the town halls and speeches. I heard him say dozens of times how we need to invest in these things (health care, education, etc.) for the future if we want to grow the economy and reduce deficits in the long term. That you can't just get smaller. That it's not an argument about bigger and smaller: it's about making the economy work. And just the other day I heard him talk about how government is NOT the problem: it can't be the solution to everything, but it has to be the solution to many things.

[DJ13]

3. If you give our current crop of politicians a goal of smaller government

the only thing they would accomplish is the elimination of programs to help the poor, the disabled, and the aged.

They would NOT reduce programs that benefit their corporate owners.

[TxRider]

5. Blah blah blah...

The more responsibilities government takes on, the more responsible for problems it becomes. The bigger the government, the more it will be to blame.

Government is to blame for this crisis simply because they are the only entity that was capable of preventing it, and were elected and paid to do so.

Making government smaller won't fix what caused the crisis, breaking up the big banks and regulating them will.

But if a bog government isn't capable of regulating and keeping this greed and criminal risk taking in check, what good are they and why should we have a big government?

[phantom power]

6. I'm beginning to regret my choice of subject line.

:banghead: