7 ms·

> Uh, that's not the silver lining from my POV. The silver lining is that liberals will realize that maybe limited government is a good thing, because they can

> Uh, that's not the silver lining from my POV. The silver lining is that liberals will realize that maybe limited government is a good thing, because they can't always rely on their person being in power. Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. "Liberals" simply did not remove it. When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that. :/

aero142 10y ago
I went through several version of this response full of profanity, but I'll trim it down to be appropriate. Absolutely not, and it's really harmful to think this. Hillary Clinton was a full supporter of the active military intervention, overseas CIA action, and domestic spying programs. Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I'm not sure Hillary Clinton is a good stand in for "liberals" in this argument, for the same reason (if not to the same extent) that I think Trump wouldn't be a good stand in for "conservatives". To clarify, your point may be entirely correct, I just don't think using Hillary Clinton advances your argument usefully.
  - btilly 10y ago
    Well, think on this. The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. Every other one increased it. Reagan got them into arms deals with Iran. Bush Sr, former CIA director, was a staunch ally. Bill Clinton expanded ECHELON, tried to regulate cryptography (remember the Clipper chip?), Bush Jr passed the Patriot Act, Obama expanded the NSA and in pursuit of leakers filed more acts under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined. At what point can we conclude that the problem is bipartisan? Of all prominent nominees this time around, only Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz said anything against the continued expansion of the surveillance state. Of all prominent nominees for 2012, only Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state. For 2008, only Kucinich and Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state. If Hillary Clinton were an isolated example, then your point would be good. But she is not. She squarely represents the political mainstream.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      I'm merely pointing out that in a discussion about liberals and conservatives, picking one person to represent the liberal point of view and then arguing against that person instead of addressing goals of the party in general is not a constructive way to proceed.
    - boomboomsubban 10y ago
      >The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. Every other one increased it. And why was Carter able to shrink them? Because Nixon was caught using them to gain political power. The problem is beyond partisan politics. You either support the intelligence agencies, or you don't get elected. Simple as that.
      - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
        Carter was able to shrink the intelligence budget because the 1975-1976 Church Committee hearings publicized bad practices by US intelligence agencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
        boomboomsubban 10y ago
        The Church Committee was a response to things that came out during the Watergate scandal, and I find it hard to believe that the public cared more about that than the things that than the Watergate scandal itself.
      - btilly 10y ago
        And the result is that Reagan-Bush were strongly supported by the intelligence agencies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... for a conspiracy theory about how far that support might have gone. (I personally put that theory in the range, "quite plausible, but unproven".)
    - CWuestefeld 10y ago
      The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. It was also under the Carter administration - and under Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - that the FISA Act was passed, which is what eventually led to all this secret surveillance.
  - aero142 10y ago
    She just won the popular vote by a large margin with a D next to her name. She has a ridiculous amount of evidence to show that she is the core of the Democratic party and the only person I had as an alternative to Trump to vote for. She isn't a stand in for every wing of liberalism in the US, but she is definitely the center of the liberal wing with any real influence.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > She just won the popular vote by a large margin with a D next to her name. So? It's not like we have an unlimited pool of candidates of every possible variation such that we can choose the one that best averages all the views of a party. Consider that we were fairly closet to having Bernie Sanders and not Hillary Clinton be the person in that position. That should illustrate how ridiculous it is to use a single person to stand in for the entire group. > She ... the only person I had as an alternative to Trump to vote for. That's irrelevant. There was a discussion about liberalism and conservatism, and someone replied with criticisms about Hillary Clinton instead of liberals in general or liberalism (note this wasn't about Democrats and Republicans, so that D is a red herring). Even if Hillary were more representative of the norm in all mainstream liberal ideas, using her specifically would not be appropriate. As it is, she diverges fairly heavily from traditional liberal ideas in some aspects, which makes it even more of a bad idea.
- mattnewton 10y ago
  Like conservatives, liberals are not a unified bloc. Look at the Bernie and progressives, who roundly criticized Hillary for her support of expanding executive power and the war on terror. Big government moderates on both sides are to blame. Liberal / conservative is the wrong axis
  - pault 10y ago
    I prefer the two dimensional grid with 'authoritarian' on one axis and 'social conservatism' on the other. It does a much better job of defining the factions within the two dominant parties in the US.
    - fictioncircle 10y ago
      Yeah it is much better of a system. https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    Arnold Kling is up to three axes. It's not a bad model.
- dhfhduk 10y ago
  I voted libertarian in part because of the concerns you're mentioning about Clinton, but I think it's disingenuous to somehow imply that Trump isn't worse, or that this didn't start with the Bush administration's response to 9/11, or that unbridled GOP power concentrated in the executive and legislature isn't a horrifying thing. I (1) don't think Clinton would have been worse policy-wise, (2) think Clinton would have been more psychologically stable and competent, and (3) the GOP in Congress would have actually criticized and raised concerns about what she was doing to score party points. The current situation is terrifying to me. I'm tired of being labeled a liberal or conservative, because I don't fit in to either camp, and get accused of being one by the other, and am tired of these arguments about who's at fault. It just needs to stop.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    >but I think it's disingenuous to somehow imply that Trump isn't worse, or that this didn't start with the Bush administration's response to 9/11 He never even remotely implied that. This comment is incredibly dishonest.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > I went through several version of this response full of profanity, but I'll trim it down to be appropriate. Absolutely not, and it's really harmful to think this. Hillary Clinton was a full supporter of the active military intervention, overseas CIA action, and domestic spying programs. Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem. "When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that. :/" The fact you missed the importance of that statement and got angry is, ultimately, on you. "Uh, that's not the silver lining from my POV. The silver lining is that liberals will realize that maybe limited government is a good thing, because they can't always rely on their person being in power. " The context of the first half of my comment that triggered you was responding to was specifically blaming liberals. (i.e. the tribal politics you despise) So I'm uncertain what part of my comment caused you to believe I believed Hillary Clinton (or even a majority of democrats) genuinely believe in less government is better for many forms of civil liberty. However, any literal reading of the text should make it clear you misunderstood my comment. So for the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase what I said in the comment you responded to in the hopes you'll better understand: Both Democrats & Republicans believe "big government" is the solution to civil liberties problems. They just do not agree with "which liberties" deserve that solution. Examples: There is no legitimate government interest that justifies government intervention that restricts the 1st amendment (or passing judgment on people based on the contents of their religious beliefs). Both parties engage in it from different directions. Same is true of privacy (as I assume you were attempting to mention with domestic spying programs). Literally no "tribe" that holds elected office shares my belief system or values to a degree substantial enough I genuinely feel represented by the US Government.
  - aero142 10y ago
    I have no interest in misrepresenting your opinion so I will happily narrow my comment. > Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. "Liberals" simply did not remove it. What reason is there to believe that the core of the Democratic party was not fully supportive of activist intervention overseas and domestic spying? Why portray this creation as a result of Conservatives?
    - 10y ago
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  > Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem. As opposed to the delusional GOP supporters who are always suckered into the small-government-yay/taxes-are-evil meme and then sit idly by while spending is increased after cutting revenue.
ihsw 10y ago
It's hilarious that you think progressive extremists are pure and good, meanwhile the evil "Conservatives" pervert America with their traditional family unit, working-class values, and newly elected president. Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018.
- mundo 10y ago
  > It's hilarious that you think [ridiculous exaggeration of what OP said] If you're going to restate someone's argument, do it in a way that they would agree with.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > It's hilarious that you think progressive extremists are pure and good, meanwhile the evil "Conservatives" pervert America with their traditional family unit, working-class values, and newly elected president. > Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018. 1) As the other person mentioned, its a ridiculous exaggeration. You ignored the second half of my comment and went on a tangent like the other person did. 2) The Conservatives won through white identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and propaganda news produced by Bannon who now holds various key government positions. This is the pot calling the kettle black (at best). 3) The Conservatives already are launching attacks on the 1st amendment (and other portions of the Constitution) against legal residents of the US and its citizens. That is evil in its most pure form in America. It is also evil when Progressives do it. They just, frankly, do it differently and the problem here is you are clearly OK with one and not the other. I call either party attacking the Constitution evil.
  - civilian 10y ago
    In regards to 2): Both parties are using identity politics, but I feel like it's distinctly the progressive left that is using it to be divisive. They call out problems that are barely there and normal white/straight america is just kind of tired of being told they're a sexist/racist/whatever, when they're really not. "You're either with our most radical programs and subsidies for our favored identities, or you're against us!"
vonklaus 10y ago
Labels are the problem. Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives ect is creating a false sense of choice. The problem has a solution: states right. ~400 million people will never agree on a leader or have their beliefs encapsulated by 1 person/party. More choice, more parties, more power distribution
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  Yes, that is a route that is most likely to create a long term solution to the 2 party system. I just don't see it being implemented (or honestly) any genuine advocates for it. It is one of those issues the GOP drops whenever they control the Federal government. Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen. It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. The secret surveillance goes to the FISA surveillance act, from back in 1978. I'm not inclined to put a party's stamp on this, I too believe it's systemic. But if you must, that was under Democrat Jimmy Carter's Presidency, with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Secret surveillance preceded FISA - FISA was specifically an attempt to rein it in. I am very much with you in not wanting to apply party labels here.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
The post-9/11 response was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. And both parties have increased the size of government.
shawnee_ 10y ago
When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that Perhaps you should try to re-frame your statement in the context of local vs state vs federal government. In reality, a government does not have to be big to be corrupt enough to willfully harm or infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. The "enforcement" piece of a local government doesn't have to be large to harass or detain or jail people. Or protesters. Or anybody they dislike for being ___________ or having voted __________. The terrifying thing about Trump's administration is that he's fueling this delusion of an America that doesn't exist any more, empowering corruption at the local level (Martial Law) while simultaneously removing options for citizens to redress where grievances about their civil liberties matter -- at the federal level.

aero142 10y ago

I went through several version of this response full of profanity, but I'll trim it down to be appropriate. Absolutely not, and it's really harmful to think this. Hillary Clinton was a full supporter of the active military intervention, overseas CIA action, and domestic spying programs. Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem.

kbenson 10y ago
I'm not sure Hillary Clinton is a good stand in for "liberals" in this argument, for the same reason (if not to the same extent) that I think Trump wouldn't be a good stand in for "conservatives". To clarify, your point may be entirely correct, I just don't think using Hillary Clinton advances your argument usefully.
- btilly 10y ago
  Well, think on this. The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. Every other one increased it. Reagan got them into arms deals with Iran. Bush Sr, former CIA director, was a staunch ally. Bill Clinton expanded ECHELON, tried to regulate cryptography (remember the Clipper chip?), Bush Jr passed the Patriot Act, Obama expanded the NSA and in pursuit of leakers filed more acts under the Espionage Act than all previous presidents combined. At what point can we conclude that the problem is bipartisan? Of all prominent nominees this time around, only Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz said anything against the continued expansion of the surveillance state. Of all prominent nominees for 2012, only Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state. For 2008, only Kucinich and Ron Paul spoke out against the surveillance state. If Hillary Clinton were an isolated example, then your point would be good. But she is not. She squarely represents the political mainstream.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I'm merely pointing out that in a discussion about liberals and conservatives, picking one person to represent the liberal point of view and then arguing against that person instead of addressing goals of the party in general is not a constructive way to proceed.
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    >The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. Every other one increased it. And why was Carter able to shrink them? Because Nixon was caught using them to gain political power. The problem is beyond partisan politics. You either support the intelligence agencies, or you don't get elected. Simple as that.
    - WillyOnWheels 10y ago
      Carter was able to shrink the intelligence budget because the 1975-1976 Church Committee hearings publicized bad practices by US intelligence agencies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
      - boomboomsubban 10y ago
        The Church Committee was a response to things that came out during the Watergate scandal, and I find it hard to believe that the public cared more about that than the things that than the Watergate scandal itself.
    - btilly 10y ago
      And the result is that Reagan-Bush were strongly supported by the intelligence agencies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th... for a conspiracy theory about how far that support might have gone. (I personally put that theory in the range, "quite plausible, but unproven".)
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    The last President to shrink the NSA, CIA, etc was Jimmy Carter. It was also under the Carter administration - and under Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - that the FISA Act was passed, which is what eventually led to all this secret surveillance.
- aero142 10y ago
  She just won the popular vote by a large margin with a D next to her name. She has a ridiculous amount of evidence to show that she is the core of the Democratic party and the only person I had as an alternative to Trump to vote for. She isn't a stand in for every wing of liberalism in the US, but she is definitely the center of the liberal wing with any real influence.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > She just won the popular vote by a large margin with a D next to her name. So? It's not like we have an unlimited pool of candidates of every possible variation such that we can choose the one that best averages all the views of a party. Consider that we were fairly closet to having Bernie Sanders and not Hillary Clinton be the person in that position. That should illustrate how ridiculous it is to use a single person to stand in for the entire group. > She ... the only person I had as an alternative to Trump to vote for. That's irrelevant. There was a discussion about liberalism and conservatism, and someone replied with criticisms about Hillary Clinton instead of liberals in general or liberalism (note this wasn't about Democrats and Republicans, so that D is a red herring). Even if Hillary were more representative of the norm in all mainstream liberal ideas, using her specifically would not be appropriate. As it is, she diverges fairly heavily from traditional liberal ideas in some aspects, which makes it even more of a bad idea.
mattnewton 10y ago
Like conservatives, liberals are not a unified bloc. Look at the Bernie and progressives, who roundly criticized Hillary for her support of expanding executive power and the war on terror. Big government moderates on both sides are to blame. Liberal / conservative is the wrong axis
- pault 10y ago
  I prefer the two dimensional grid with 'authoritarian' on one axis and 'social conservatism' on the other. It does a much better job of defining the factions within the two dominant parties in the US.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    Yeah it is much better of a system. https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016 https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  Arnold Kling is up to three axes. It's not a bad model.
dhfhduk 10y ago
I voted libertarian in part because of the concerns you're mentioning about Clinton, but I think it's disingenuous to somehow imply that Trump isn't worse, or that this didn't start with the Bush administration's response to 9/11, or that unbridled GOP power concentrated in the executive and legislature isn't a horrifying thing. I (1) don't think Clinton would have been worse policy-wise, (2) think Clinton would have been more psychologically stable and competent, and (3) the GOP in Congress would have actually criticized and raised concerns about what she was doing to score party points. The current situation is terrifying to me. I'm tired of being labeled a liberal or conservative, because I don't fit in to either camp, and get accused of being one by the other, and am tired of these arguments about who's at fault. It just needs to stop.
- benchaney 10y ago
  >but I think it's disingenuous to somehow imply that Trump isn't worse, or that this didn't start with the Bush administration's response to 9/11 He never even remotely implied that. This comment is incredibly dishonest.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> I went through several version of this response full of profanity, but I'll trim it down to be appropriate. Absolutely not, and it's really harmful to think this. Hillary Clinton was a full supporter of the active military intervention, overseas CIA action, and domestic spying programs. Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem. "When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that. :/" The fact you missed the importance of that statement and got angry is, ultimately, on you. "Uh, that's not the silver lining from my POV. The silver lining is that liberals will realize that maybe limited government is a good thing, because they can't always rely on their person being in power. " The context of the first half of my comment that triggered you was responding to was specifically blaming liberals. (i.e. the tribal politics you despise) So I'm uncertain what part of my comment caused you to believe I believed Hillary Clinton (or even a majority of democrats) genuinely believe in less government is better for many forms of civil liberty. However, any literal reading of the text should make it clear you misunderstood my comment. So for the sake of clarity, I'll rephrase what I said in the comment you responded to in the hopes you'll better understand: Both Democrats & Republicans believe "big government" is the solution to civil liberties problems. They just do not agree with "which liberties" deserve that solution. Examples: There is no legitimate government interest that justifies government intervention that restricts the 1st amendment (or passing judgment on people based on the contents of their religious beliefs). Both parties engage in it from different directions. Same is true of privacy (as I assume you were attempting to mention with domestic spying programs). Literally no "tribe" that holds elected office shares my belief system or values to a degree substantial enough I genuinely feel represented by the US Government.
- aero142 10y ago
  I have no interest in misrepresenting your opinion so I will happily narrow my comment. > Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. "Liberals" simply did not remove it. What reason is there to believe that the core of the Democratic party was not fully supportive of activist intervention overseas and domestic spying? Why portray this creation as a result of Conservatives?
  - 10y ago
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
> Delusional tribal politics is a big part of the problem. As opposed to the delusional GOP supporters who are always suckered into the small-government-yay/taxes-are-evil meme and then sit idly by while spending is increased after cutting revenue.

ihsw 10y ago

It's hilarious that you think progressive extremists are pure and good, meanwhile the evil "Conservatives" pervert America with their traditional family unit, working-class values, and newly elected president. Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018.

mundo 10y ago
> It's hilarious that you think [ridiculous exaggeration of what OP said] If you're going to restate someone's argument, do it in a way that they would agree with.
fictioncircle 10y ago
> It's hilarious that you think progressive extremists are pure and good, meanwhile the evil "Conservatives" pervert America with their traditional family unit, working-class values, and newly elected president. > Here's a newsflash -- the Dems are just as responsible for our current state of affairs by doubling down on pointless identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and hopeless fake news. Such adherence ideological extremism will only serve to destroy the Democratic party before 2018. 1) As the other person mentioned, its a ridiculous exaggeration. You ignored the second half of my comment and went on a tangent like the other person did. 2) The Conservatives won through white identity politics, hateful rhetoric, and propaganda news produced by Bannon who now holds various key government positions. This is the pot calling the kettle black (at best). 3) The Conservatives already are launching attacks on the 1st amendment (and other portions of the Constitution) against legal residents of the US and its citizens. That is evil in its most pure form in America. It is also evil when Progressives do it. They just, frankly, do it differently and the problem here is you are clearly OK with one and not the other. I call either party attacking the Constitution evil.
- civilian 10y ago
  In regards to 2): Both parties are using identity politics, but I feel like it's distinctly the progressive left that is using it to be divisive. They call out problems that are barely there and normal white/straight america is just kind of tired of being told they're a sexist/racist/whatever, when they're really not. "You're either with our most radical programs and subsidies for our favored identities, or you're against us!"

vonklaus 10y ago

Labels are the problem. Democrats and Republicans, liberals, conservatives ect is creating a false sense of choice. The problem has a solution: states right. ~400 million people will never agree on a leader or have their beliefs encapsulated by 1 person/party. More choice, more parties, more power distribution

fictioncircle 10y ago
Yes, that is a route that is most likely to create a long term solution to the 2 party system. I just don't see it being implemented (or honestly) any genuine advocates for it. It is one of those issues the GOP drops whenever they control the Federal government. Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Realistically, I'd like to see a minimal federal government that was intelligently run as a LEO/Military/Justice/Treaty as its primary responsibilities and actually enforced the constitutional rights of Americans instead of restricting them. But that will never happen. It also doesn't work when anyone can freely migrate between the states. You can't have large social assistance programs and high taxes in one state and the opposite in an adjacent state and not expect an unsustainable influx of low income people into the state with more benefits and high income people and businesses into the state with lower taxes. The problem with the federal government is that it's structurally too susceptible to special interests. Instead of an exception-free flat tax and a UBI that nobody can cheat, you get a tax code full of deductions for donors and a welfare system full of subsidies for industries with strong lobbies like insurance and finance. Instead of a normal-sized military that defends the country, you have a corrupt money train into the military industrial complex. Probably the only fix for it is to put the important bits in the constitution, e.g. there shall be a flat value added tax the rate to be set by Congress, Congress may provide a universal basic income to every citizen in the same cash amount, no other federal taxes or federal social assistance shall exist, military spending in peacetime is capped at 5% of GDP (where "peacetime" means "no enemy soldiers on US soil"). Remove as much discretion and complexity from the federal government as possible, and if something isn't suited to be done simply and uniformly then the states have to do it.

CWuestefeld 10y ago

Conservatives are the ones that created this nightmare in the days after 9/11. The secret surveillance goes to the FISA surveillance act, from back in 1978. I'm not inclined to put a party's stamp on this, I too believe it's systemic. But if you must, that was under Democrat Jimmy Carter's Presidency, with large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress.

dllthomas 10y ago
Secret surveillance preceded FISA - FISA was specifically an attempt to rein it in. I am very much with you in not wanting to apply party labels here.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

The post-9/11 response was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. And both parties have increased the size of government.

shawnee_ 10y ago

When it comes to civil liberties, smaller government is always a good thing but literally no party supports that Perhaps you should try to re-frame your statement in the context of local vs state vs federal government. In reality, a government does not have to be big to be corrupt enough to willfully harm or infringe upon the civil liberties of its citizens. The "enforcement" piece of a local government doesn't have to be large to harass or detain or jail people. Or protesters. Or anybody they dislike for being ___________ or having voted __________. The terrifying thing about Trump's administration is that he's fueling this delusion of an America that doesn't exist any more, empowering corruption at the local level (Martial Law) while simultaneously removing options for citizens to redress where grievances about their civil liberties matter -- at the federal level.