Does Liberalism = Big Government?

[OrangeEmpire]

Right.

Both liberals and conservatives favor "big government." More accurately, both favor government involvement in some areas and withdrawl in others.

Conservatives accuse liberals of championing "big government" when conservatives ramp up spending on defence, prisons, police and so forth. Some kinds of conservatives would see government enforcing "public morality" or whatever. Banning porn. Banning abortion. Outlawing homosexual behaviors. Government in the bedrooms of the nation. That sort of thing. So this is "big government" of a sort.

Liberals in turn accuse conservatives of being hypocrites, since all of the above entails "big government." But this is a mistake. Conservatives aren't really about "small government" for the sake of small government. Rather, it's the use to which government is put, and more importantly why, that fundamentally divides the two philosophies. Size of government is actually irrelevant to both.

Liberals consider the patriot act to be indicative of big, intrusive government. Conservatives consider OSHA to be indicative of big, intrusive government. Liberals see the Christian Right as an instance of government threatening to intrude on people's private lives. Conservatives see political correctness as an instance of government threatening to intrude on people's private lives. Oftentimes, the two sides actually favor similar kinds of "big" government, but for different reasons. Consider the alliance of feminists and fundamentalists to ban pornography, for instance.

Conservatives are primarily concerned with social order and individual responsibility. Liberals are primarily concerned with individual rights and social justice. Conservatives believe in a society based on moral values and traditions that have stood the test of time and proven themselves to be the basis of a strong, functioning society. Liberals believe in a society based on fairness, equality and progress. Each side puts the government to use promoting the values it believes in.

Thoughts?

 

[TennTradition]

All I have to say is....:clapping:














...for now... I'm usually pretty long-winded, but that was a great post OE.

 

[Lexvol]

They have all learned to bribe us with our own money. That is old news OE. When the elephants backed off of their stance on term limits set forth in the "Contract to Earn More Seats" it told me all I needed to know about D.C.

 

[TennTradition]

They have all learned to bribe us with our own money. That is old news OE. When the elephants backed off of their stance on term limits set forth in the "Contract to Earn More Seats" it told me all I needed to know about D.C.

I like the post not because it is a revelation, but because it does a great job distilling down the feeling you describe (sort of) to a few very tangible and good points.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

If you would have asked me this in 2000, I would have said Liberalism = big gov't.

But after 6 1/2 years of Bush and this Congress, I have to say that there isn't anybody in Washington looking to bring down the size of gov't.

Both parties believe in big gov't.

 

[volinbham]

Both conservatism and liberalism have changed since their original conotations.

Liberalism in a broader sense used to be more of a libertarian perspective. In economic terms, it is associated with free trade and capitalism -- 2 things any good liberal today would decry.

Likewise, conservatism has expanded as OE suggests.

 

[BigPapaVol]

IMO, it's pretty simple. Either party in control of the presidency and both houses is in full expansion mode. I'm no longer in favor of either party with unfettered control of both. Politicians are politicians, regardless of ilk, and cannot be trusted to put the welfare of the nation in front of their personal agendas, period.

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

Great post, OE. Ron Paul is the only candidate I've viewed that's preaching about down-sizing the government in a big way... Something I'm all for.

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Great post, OE. Ron Paul is the only candidate I've viewed that's preaching about down-sizing the government in a big way... Something I'm all for.

The president can't down size government, for one. Secondly, it would take a complete overhaul of our current system at the local, state, and federal levels to get us where we need to be. The only way this gets down is through the people. If we continue to elect career politicians to office, then its our own dumb fault for letting it happen.

 

[truefan]

IMO, it's pretty simple. Either party in control of the presidency and both houses is in full expansion mode. I'm no longer in favor of either party with unfettered control of both. Politicians are politicians, regardless of ilk, and cannot be trusted to put the welfare of the nation in front of their personal agendas, period.

I agree. The system works much better when one party holds the presidency and the other holds Congress or at least it did in the 90s. Dem pres and GOP Congress. The new dem Congress isn't working well with Bush, but Bush is lame duck anyway. If Dems retain control of Congress, the system will work much better with a republican president........in that scenario I would want Fred. If GOP reclaims Congress, Hillary will work best. With Dem congress, Biden would be best Dem president but we all know that isn't going to happen :birgits_giggle:

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

The president can't down size government, for one. Secondly, it would take a complete overhaul of our current system at the local, state, and federal levels to get us where we need to be. The only way this gets down is through the people. If we continue to elect career politicians to office, then its our own dumb fault for letting it happen.

I have a hard time believing that a as a fact. A president does not have the ability to down-size a government? If the administration found a bill to be intrusive of our liberties, are you saying he doesn't have the ability to abolish the corruption? Ron Paul, by most, is considered a constitutionalist & a libertarian. What makes you think he wouldn't over-throw that which he finds intrusive to our promised rights as American citizens? He may not have the direct power to do it in one say, but he has the power to inform why this is unconstitutional or too authoritative, hence bringing a change (for the good). I agree with you, an overhaul of many, many things is needed to get where we need to be. The correct way this gets 'down' is through Congress, though, if I'm not mistaken. Congress has the given ability. The people can persist (many have), but there isn't a whole lot the mass can do to change a corrupt system. The mass of the people rely too heavily upon our government, in the first place. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment stating, "it's the fault of the people". If the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act follows through, will it be our fault, too? Just like the Patriot Act was?

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

I have a hard time believing that a as a fact. A president does not have the ability to down-size a government? If the administration found a bill to be intrusive of our liberties, are you saying he doesn't have the ability to abolish the corruption? Ron Paul, by most, is considered a constitutionalist & a libertarian. What makes you think he wouldn't over-throw that which he finds intrusive to our promised rights as American citizens? He may not have the direct power to do it in one say, but he has the power to inform why this is unconstitutional or too authoritative, hence bringing a change (for the good). I agree with you, an overhaul of many, many things is needed to get where we need to be. The correct way this gets 'down' is through Congress, though, if I'm not mistaken. Congress has the given ability. The people can persist (many have), but there isn't a whole lot the mass can do to change a corrupt system. The mass of the people rely too heavily upon our government, in the first place. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment stating, "it's the fault of the people". If the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act follows through, will it be our fault, too? Just like the Patriot Act was?

Unless there is reform in both parties, nothing is going to happen. The President can't do anything to downsize government. Congress won't have it and the lobbyists won't let it happen either. There has only been one time in history that the Federal Deficit that it has been balanced. As long as we are in the trillions of dollars in debt, we will have a big government. Also, unless we get rid of the current welfare system we will have big government. Watch what happens if we get Hilary as president. I guarantee you that we will see a moderate recession and MORE TAXES MORE TAXES MORE TAXES. She will also get us into the problem that Canada is in with their Health Care system, if she gets her plan in place. People will die from long waits for surgeries. You think our government is big now, if a democrat gets in and health care is socialized we will have a HUGE government. Get ready to pay for other people's health care. It's not going to be fun.

 

[myrobbins7]

Unless there is reform in both parties, nothing is going to happen. The President can't do anything to downsize government. Congress won't have it and the lobbyists won't let it happen either. There has only been one time in history that the Federal Deficit that it has been balanced. As long as we are in the trillions of dollars in debt, we will have a big government. Also, unless we get rid of the current welfare system we will have big government. Watch what happens if we get Hilary as president. I guarantee you that we will see a moderate recession and MORE TAXES MORE TAXES MORE TAXES. She will also get us into the problem that Canada is in with their Health Care system, if she gets her plan in place. People will die from long waits for surgeries. You think our government is big now, if a democrat gets in and health care is socialized we will have a HUGE government. Get ready to pay for other people's health care. It's not going to be fun.

How right you are. :thumbsup: Tax Tax Tax Tax and more Taxes. Im wondering how the stock market is going to take it if Hilary gets in? :whistling: .It will be very interesting. opcorn:

 

[CSpindizzy]

The president can't down size government, for one. Secondly, it would take a complete overhaul of our current system at the local, state, and federal levels to get us where we need to be. The only way this gets down is through the people. If we continue to elect career politicians to office, then its our own dumb fault for letting it happen.

He can't? Pulling out the Corso pencil...not so fast my friend. What branch of government holds the majority of government? Executive. Look at the bulk of government. It all comes from executive branch agencies and departments. Congress approves expansion but who actually sets budget requests and actually spends the money and hires the bloated staff? Department of Health and Human Services? Department of Education? Check out ALL of the agencies, departments, commissions, etc. that fall under the Executive Branch. It would not take much to refuse to hire, refuse to spend, etc. Or if all else fails there is a simple constitutional privilege called a VETO that could easily solve this problem. The man currently in this seat lacks the conviction, principles, or grapefruits to follow Nancy Reagan and "Just say NO".

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

He can't? Pulling out the Corso pencil...not so fast my friend. What branch of government holds the majority of government? Executive. Look at the bulk of government. It all comes from executive branch agencies and departments. Congress approves expansion but who actually sets budget requests and actually spends the money and hires the bloated staff? Department of Health and Human Services? Department of Education? Check out ALL of the agencies, departments, commissions, etc. that fall under the Executive Branch. It would not take much to refuse to hire, refuse to spend, etc. Or if all else fails there is a simple constitutional privilege called a VETO that could easily solve this problem. The man currently in this seat lacks the conviction, principles, or grapefruits to follow Nancy Reagan and "Just say NO".

Our government has become so large, that even the President can't do very much to downsize anything other than his own personal cabinet perhaps. Sorry CSpin, but the check and balances of our government prevent the president from having the power to downsize very much. Could you imagine what would happen if the President TRIED to downsize something?? The Dems went off about 7-8 US Attorneys getting fired, imagine what would happen if he tried to make our government smaller?? Like I said previously, the people are going to have to make smaller government happen. You now why we left England in the first place right?? I don't know what we are in for in the future if this country continues down the path of entitlements we are currently on.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Again, the vast majority, and I mean majority, of the government falls under the Executive Branch. Government has grown exponentially under this current President. It was due to his own initiative that this occurred. Congress can be partially blamed for this but two items that occurred right before 9/11 or not related to 9/11 increased the size of the federal government solely from the responsibility of the White House: No Child Left Behind and the Farm Bill. Tack on the DHS creation and reorganization after 9/11 and you have an ever-growing monster. Bush's Medicare reform package increased government as well. So while it took Congressional approval and appropriations for these to be created it was the President's own requests under Republican Congress that actually created them in the first place.

The fact remains that a GOP White House and Congress both grew government to its largest entity EVER. The ironic part is the same people who fattened up government are about to go ballistic on the Dems for their new proposals. Pot calling the kettle black and so-called conservatives with a history of big government now accusing Dems of creating big government.

So to respond to your point, had the President never REQUESTED much of his proposals, we would not be in the current situation of record size government. So you can even take away downsizing and just not request in the first place.