Small government

{{uspolitics}}{{cquote|We conservatives believe that the government is bad, and we have got the candidates to prove it.|||P.J. O'Rourke}}
'''Small Government'''™ (pronounced "govmint," "gubmint," or "gummint") is, according to some [[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s, the ideal form of [[government]] as set forth by the [[Founding Fathers]]. It has become a [[Tea Party movement|Teabagger]] mantra over the past few years. Scholars have yet to come to a consensus as to the exact meaning of Small Government™ or if it [[Dog-whistle politics|means anything at all.]]

However, 100% of people named [[Grover Norquist]] agree that Small Government™ is most simply defined as 
fuck you got mine
 [[Nirvana fallacy|All That is Good and Holy]].

==Just what in the world ''is'' Small Government?==
===The founders' intent===
Proponents of Small Government™ claim that we must return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers™ and the [[US Constitution]] and that the founders' intent can clearly be discerned by [[originalism|reading the plain text of the Constitution]]. Apparently, the founders all agreed that there was only one true way to govern: low [[tax]]es and [[deregulation|no regulations]]. After all, [[Thomas Jefferson]] wrote "That government is best which governs least." (Except [http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/government-best-which-governs-least-quotation he didn't.])

Of course, even a simple grade-school knowledge of [[history]] should put to rest the notion that the Founding Fathers were some kind of unitary [[hive mind]] that agreed on everything (some even liked [[Alexander Hamilton|central banking]], [[John Adams|censoring the press]], and [[Thomas Jefferson|buying Louisiana]]). Further, if they wanted a government too small to even collect its own taxes, they would have kept the [[Articles of Confederation]] instead of throwing it out to create a stronger government in the Constitution.

While the role of the government was, in general, much smaller before the 20th century, there are many examples of not-very-small-government programs that the government initiated during this period. For example, land grants that encouraged homesteading and railroad construction in the American West, the construction of canals in key waterways, instituting the beginnings of the modern [[public school]] system, modern sanitation and sewer systems, [http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/ forcing sailors to purchase health insurance], levying the first federal income taxes, and, of course, freeing the [[slave]]s. The era of Small Government™ is, shall we say, [[Romanticism|romanticized]] [[mythology]]. Many conservatives selectively begin their criticism of Big Government in the 20th century — especially the Franklin Roosevelt and Republican (!) Dwight D. Eisenhower administrations — in which the government set out minimum food safety standards, established [[Social Security]] and [[Medicare]], mandated a minimum wage, guaranteed the right of workers to [[trade union|unionize]], instituted the 40-hour workweek, banned child labor, built the {{wpl|Interstate Highway System||,}} instituted high taxes on the rich, and [[Internet|created the thing you're using to read these words]]. (For extra Teabagger [[irony]] value, the participants of the [[Boston Tea Party|real Tea Party]] were actually protesting a ''tax cut''.)

===Norquistopia===
Okay, so what in hell does Small Government™ mean then if not what the Founders intended? Another definition is given by [[Grover Norquist]]: Bringing government spending down to 8.5% of [[GDP]].<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/11/18/nbsp-government-percent-fm/ 15 Questions with Grover G. Norquist], The Harvard Crimson</ref> Why? Because [[Appeal to tradition|that's what it was at the turn of the 20th century]], obviously. Norquist's number is transparently [[PIDOOMA|arbitrary]] and [[Innumeracy|innumerate]]. Say the economy went through a massive boom, bringing spending below 8% of GDP. Norquist's plan would then have us ''increase'' spending!

So, what ''is'' the paragon of a successful Libertarian country? ''Is the pat Libertarian answer [[Unicorn|"there hasn't been one yet"?]]'' '''Tell 'em what they've won, Johnny!'''<ref>Lind, Michael, [http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/ "The question libertarians just can’t answer", Salon (Tuesday, Jun 4, 2013 09:17 AM PST).</ref><ref>Ebeling, Richard M., [http://blogs.northwood.edu/indefenseofcapitalism/2011/03/30/the-gold-standard-and-monetary-freedom/ "The Gold Standard and monetary Freedom"], 3.29.11. '''Ebeling''': "The United States and, indeed, virtually the entire world operate under a regime of monetary socialism." {{reds}}</ref>

''No other country'' spends 8.5% of its GDP per annum in the world. However, according to Norquist's standards, [[Afghanistan]] looks like a hot spot to move to considering it spends about 9% of its GDP. [[Denmark]], though, is probably some [[Soviet]] rathole since it spends at close to 60% of its GDP.<ref>[http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html Government Spending as % of GDP]</ref>

===The night watchman===
At least minarchist libertarians have the (limited) decency to give us a clear-cut definition of Small Government,™ but they often prefer to call it the "night watchman state," which [[Robert Nozick]] expounded on in ''Anarchy, State, and Utopia''. This is simply a skeletal form of government where only negative rights are protected by keeping only coercive acts of violence or theft illegal. The government would largely be composed of just [[police]], judiciary, and prison system in order to enforce the [[law]] and a military to provide for national defense. This minarchist view is common within the libertarian movement, being espoused by writers such as [[Ayn Rand]]. However, it doesn't really square with the views of the [[politician]]s who both use the term and are mainstream enough to appear on TV like [[Sarah Palin]].

==Recipe for Liberty==
{{cquote|That's the standard technique of privatization: defund, make sure things don't work, people get angry, you hand it over to private capital.|||[[Noam Chomsky]]}}
* 1) Complain that government is inefficient, causes problems, services are failing etc.
* 2) Control the narrative using your media connections, get your candidate(s) elected by out-spending the other guys
* 3) [[Starve the beast|Slash funding for public services, brick-wall any proposed reforms, set in motion policies and regulations that make those services harder to administer and fund.]] [[Privatization|Sell off services to private interests that deliberately mismanage and strip them of any valuables and leave them a hollowed out wreck.]]
* 4) [[Self-fulfilling prophecy|Complain that government is inefficient, causes problems, services are failing, etc.]]

It's the political version of "STOP HITTING YOURSELF, STOP HITTING YOURSELF, STOP HITTING YOURSELF".

===Suffrage===
The Preamble of the Constitution begins with “We the People...” so literalists (and most other folks) read that as meaning that the people ''are'' the government (at least those people who participate). So in order to implement Small Government,™ you need to reduce the number of people who participate. 

Up until the about middle of the 20th century, that was accomplished by restricting suffrage to wealthy, male landowners 21 or older. But [[women]], [[African American|Black people]], [[poor]] people, and some teenagers got the vote, so the Small Government™ supporters had to figure out another way to reduce the number of voters (reduce the size of government). So they did things like: passed [[Jim Crow laws]], enacted [[voter ID]] laws, disenfranchised felons, purged voter rolls, created long lines at the polls, and other tactics to reduce the size of government as much as possible. Sound familiar?

===Temporarily embarrassed millionaires===
{{#ev:youtube|LfgSEwjAeno}}

It's actually a brilliant defense mechanism to cope with the [[cognitive dissonance]] of voting against one's own interests. The GOP does things that hurt my prosperity. Oh, well, it's because I'm playing the long game: I'll eventually be rich enough to benefit from these votes/policies. Oh, I haven't gotten rich yet? It's not my fault — it's those [[Red-baiting|"socialist"]] pantywaists in Washington (and all the [[African American|moochers]] who support them) who are preventing the [[free market]] from operating like it should.<ref>Weigel, David, [http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/09/21/temporarily_embarrassed_millionaires.html "Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires"], Slate 9.21.11.</ref><ref>Younge, Gary, [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/29/working-class-voters-america-republican "Working class voters: why America's poor are willing to vote Republican"], ''[[The Guardian]]'' 10.29.12.</ref>

[[Horseshoe theory|Ironically]], it's pretty much the same in Russia.<ref>Muir, Hugh, [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/20/putin-republicans-rivals-look-like-elitists "What Links Putin and US Republicans? Their Opponents Look Elitist"], ''The Guardian'' 1.20.13.</ref> "I support [[Vladimir Putin|Putin]]. Putin does things that hurt my prosperity, but in the long run, he moves in his mysterious ways to make Russia great, or at least make the rest of the world suck even more than Russia. If that hasn't happened, it's because I didn't support him hard enough or [[Circular logic|haven't suffered enough under his policies.]]"

===Fight The Power===
[[Hippie]]s like to talk about how they are always [[persecution complex|being kept down by The Man]], maaaaaaan. Similarly, Small Government™ proponents like to talk about "getting gummint off our backs" and "getting gummint out of the way," implying that if only Big Government™ could be done away with, it would leave space for good ol' [[Rugged individualism|American Ingenuity]]™ and The [[Protestant work ethic|Protestant Work Ethic]]™ to lead us into a new [[golden age]] of American prosperity. Figuring out how this would be [[utopia|accomplished]] is left as an exercise for the reader. For this reason, a [[fringe]] group of Small Government™ theorists believe that Big Government™ and The Man™ may in fact be the same thing, leading them to conclude that many conservatives are in fact [[deep cover liberal|deep cover hippies]].

===Reaganism===
{{main|Reaganism}}
The case of [[Ronald Reagan]] is one that still troubles many scholars in the Small Government™ field. Reagan was a Small Government™ conservative, yet he exploded the federal debt, bailed out [[Social Security]], expanded defense programs, and expanded the War on Drugs. Scholars have yet to work out the [[Big lie|Reagan paradox]] and it remains yet another puzzle to be solved by enterprising sociologists.

People forget that government jobs ([[Newt Gingrich|classified by the conservatives]] as so-called "bureaucrats") are actually good, solid middle-class jobs. When you talk about government cut backs, you're cutting road construction, you're cutting [[NASA]], you're cutting healthcare, you're cutting scientific investigation. All of these are in record decline since 2009 and there is no way for the private sector to pick up the slack. So you have worse roads with more pot holes, bigger class sizes in schools, fewer engineers working on space exploration, longer waits at public health clinics, longer waits at the DMV, and so forth. This is why Reaganomics doesn't work. 

===It's whatever Big Government isn't!===
Expert political scientists have hypothesized that Small Government™ is simply whatever isn't Big Government.™ Using the Teabaggers as a representative sample of Small Government™ proponents, we find that things not considered to be Big Government™ include:
*The [[PATRIOT Act]]
*The [[Military-industrial complex|US Armed Forces]]
*[[Guantanamo Bay]]
*The [[War on Drugs|War on (Some) Drugs]]
*[[Secure the border|Securing the border]]
*Keeping the [[gay]]s from getting [[same-sex marriage|married]].
*[[Medicare]] and Medicaid.<ref>Tea Party activists have put a fresh new spin on the status of these entitlement programs as public, claiming that they, in fact, have [http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2011/02/sign_of_the_times1.jpg nothing] [http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/s-MEDICARE-large.jpg to do with] [http://www.alternet.org/health/142174 government at all!]</ref>
*Criminalizing [[abortion]]
*Mandating invasive, uncomfortable, expensive, and medically unnecessary procedures (as long as such mandates only apply to women).
*[[Corporate welfare]] in all its various guises.

In fairness to the libertarians (excepting the [[Neal Boortz]]/[[Instapundit]] types), they have been consistently against these policies, as government is the handiwork of [[Satan]].

Some research suggests that Big Government™ is actually [[socialism]] [[code word|in disguise]]… or something. [[Friedrich von Hayek]] asserted in ''The Road to Serfdom'' that even the slightest dose of Big Government™ would prove deadly, leading us down the [[slippery slope]] to an inevitable [[communist|communo]]-[[fascist]] autocracy. Not shockingly, most citizens of first world nations don't believe that they are living under [[totalitarian]] regimes. However, [[Alex Jones|others]] think that they are just stupid [[sheeple]].

What is generally understood to be the case by many scholars in the political field, though, is that there is a Manichean division between two types of government: Small and Big, with the former being good and the latter being bad. All political issues can be reduced to this [[false dichotomy|dichotomy]].

==The Nanny State==
The Nanny State™ is Big Government™ with added nag. [[British]] MP Iain Macleod allegedly discovered the existence of the Nanny State™ in 1965.<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Brian-Monteith-We-must-break.5540858.jp?FORM=ZZNR3 "We Must Break Free From the Bully State"]</ref>

What does a nanny do? Most likely, she keeps you from eating sweets before dinner, looking at naughty magazines, or staying up past your bedtime! [[Hillary Clinton]], for example, is a Big Government™ [[Democrat]] who thinks the government needs to keep all that nasty [[sex]] out of our children's violent [[video game]]s.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2005/07/senator-clinton-burned-hot-coffee-proposes-grand-theft-free-speech Senator Clinton, Burned by Hot Coffee, Proposes Grand Theft of Free Speech], EFF</ref> [[Orrin Hatch]], on the other hand, is a Small Government™ [[Republican]] who thinks "obscenity" should be illegal, which is [[denial|not "nanny" in any way, ''not at all'']].<ref>[http://www.deseretnews.com/mobile/article/700125036/Enforce-federal-laws-on-obscenity.html "Enforce federal laws on obscenity"]</ref> Seeing Janet Jackson's exposed breast on live TV made Small Government™ Republican Heather Wilson very, ''very'' angry.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIn6eay9Mw Heather Wilson "Nipplegate" testimony]</ref>

[[Wingnut]]s claim the very existence of [[welfare]] undermines [[The American Dream]] by creating a populace of dependent [[welfare queen]]s, as the government will be your "nanny" from cradle to grave.<ref>While there will be "free riders" in any system, fraud is actually not rampant in US welfare programs, many welfare recipients also hold down full-time jobs, and don't spend their entire lives on welfare. ([http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html Eight Welfare Myths], Anita Freeman)</ref>  These [[benefit scrounger]]s simply aren't doing their work: Milking the government out of the maximum amount of cash. Maybe they ought to quit their jobs and get some [[Matthew Lesko]] books! And [[Eisenhower]] expanding welfare in the 1950s?  ''Never happened''!

===Conservative Nanny State?===
Macroeconomist {{wpl|Dean Baker}} argues in his self-published book ''Conservative Nanny State'' that conservatives actually support policy that is Big Government™ and anti-free market. He asserts that conservative stances on tort "reform," [[patent]] and bankruptcy laws, and [[Federal Reserve|interest rate policy]] creates a conservative Nanny State™ that is intended to benefit (yet another big) Big Business™ and the wealthy. [[Vulgar libertarianism|Many]] claim this to be impossible.<ref>''Conservative Nanny State'' by Dean Baker (2006) Lulu.com. ISBN 1411693957.</ref>

Particularly when Republicans control all the levers of power in state government (executive, legislative and judicial), one begins to see the effects of coercive state government on local governments. Examples include [[Ron DeSantis]]' [[Florida]] ([[censorship]],<ref>[https://www.epi.org/blog/how-state-policies-that-censor-race-and-gender-discussions-in-classrooms-maintain-economic-inequality-florida-has-adopted-particularly-dangerous-laws-to-limit-academic-freedom/ How state policies that censor race and gender discussions in classrooms maintain economic inequality: Florida has adopted particularly dangerous laws to limit academic freedom] Adewale A. Maye & Jennifer Sherer (June 28, 2023 at 2:12 pm) ''Economic Policy Institute''.</ref> book banning,<ref>[https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article279568719.html Florida now leads the country in book bans, new PEN report says. How did that happen?] by Amanda Geduld (September 22, 2023 12:04 PM) ''Miami Herald''.</ref> removal of Democratic prosecutors, forcing ideologues into public colleges such as New College of Florida<ref>[https://apnews.com/article/desantis-new-college-florida-woke-timeline-5a5bcd78230ddd2a1adb8021fea8a755 Anatomy of a political takeover at Florida public college] (10:06 PM PST, March 29, 2023) ''Associated Press''.</ref>) and [[Greg Abbott]]'s [[Texas]] (preempting all local laws, ending local control of elections).<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/11/27/red-states-blue-cities-preemption-control Antagonisms flare as red states try to dictate how blue cities are run] by Molly Hennessy-Fiske (November 27, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

==Americans don't like it big==
Many [[Europe]]an 
citizens
 snobs claim that Americans like everything obnoxiously <big>'''Big'''</big>: Big [[Car]]s, [[McDonald's|Big Macs]], Big [[breast|Tracts of Land]], [[Andrew Breitbart|Big Hollywood]], etc. This is patently false. Every good American hates ''something'' <big>'''Big'''</big>. [[Moonbat]]s hate [[Big Pharma]]™ and Big [[Oil]].™ Wingnuts hate Big Government™ and [[Big science|Big Science]].™ [[Jesusland|Real America]]™ is all about '''small'''-town values, '''small''' businesses, and giving the '''little''' guy his chance (but not [[Wal-Mart]]). Small is good, really! We don't know where all this <big>'''Big'''</big> stuff came from. It was like this when we found it, honest.

==Big Society (Brits do like it big)==
UK Prime Minister [[David Cameron]] has helped to [[public relations|reinvent the concept]] of Small Government™ in the minds of the British people through his Big Society™ program.<ref>Not to be confused with the [[Lyndon Johnson|Great Society]]™</ref> ''The Sunday Times'' remarked that it was "an impressive attempt to [[framing|reframe]] the role of government and unleash entrepreneurial spirit."<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20100414151725/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7096805.ece "The big society"]</ref> (Just [[Austerity|ignore]] the stalled GDP growth!)

Through this campaign, Cameron demonstrated his advanced knowledge of Small Government™ by [[doublespeak|repackaging]] it for the British public. Because the Brits are evil socialists, they love <big>'''Big'''</big> things, especially government. Thus, they simply cannot understand the benefits of Small Government™ (this is likely due to socialist [[indoctrination]] at state schools). Because all government is simply a sliding scale between Small and Big Government,™  cuts in government programs aren't just making government smaller, they're making everything else bigger! Hence, the Big Society.™

==See also==
*[[Conservation of government]]
*[[Good old days]], when government was much smaller
*[[Rugged individualism]], how real men lived in the Age of Small Government™
*[[Starve the beast]], an alleged method for the creation of Small Government™

==External links==
*[http://www.centerforsmallgovernment.com/ Center for Small Government], for all your Small Government™ needs.
*[http://baselinescenario.com/2011/05/12/whats-a-big-government/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaselineScenario+%28The+Baseline+Scenario%29 What's a Big Government?]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Big Stuff]]
[[Category:Government]]
[[Category:Political strategery]]
[[Category:Political theory]]
[[Category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Misnomers]]

Categories: Big Stuff, Government, Political strategery, Political theory, Political terms, Misnomers