8 ms·

However, it has not only become questionable whether Washington will be able to make the necessary changes in the foreseeable future, the corruption that underl

by hugh3 15y ago

However, it has not only become questionable whether Washington will be able to make the necessary changes in the foreseeable future, the corruption that underlies this inability is very hard to get rid of and may cripple the government even further. The issue in the US is that there is a genuine ideological split between the two parties about what the US government should look like. The Democrats want a big government, which takes in a lot of taxes and provides a lot of services to everybody. The Republicans want a small government, which takes in minimalist taxes and provides minimalist services. (I'm not interested in debating the relative merits of these two ideologies today.) And this isn't just the parties' ideologues, either -- the same ideological split genuinely exists in the US public (contrast to many other countries where the "big government" types seem to have largely won the argument). Either party could easily balance the budget on its own, given unlimited power. However, because of the way the US political system just happens to work, it's very hard to do anything without getting at least some of the other guys on board. The Republicans have for many years had a "starve the beast" strategy, figuring that if you keep on cutting taxes then eventually the Democrats will have to agree to cut spending as well. In recent years the Democrats have invented the opposite "gorge the beast" strategy, in which you figure that if you keep on increasing spending then eventually you'll be able to pressure the Republicans into agreeing to tax increases. And the poor beast being starved at one and and gorged at the other starts to... wait, no, this analogy is breaking down. What's the solution? There really isn't one. The ideological split in the American public is real and it isn't going away any time soon, and folks need to stop proposing "solutions" which basically just come down to "all we need is for the other side to come over and agree with us and it'll all be rosy." That's not gonna happen. But perhaps the first step is to acknowledge that this ideological split is genuine, and real, and does actually reflect the ideological split within the US population. Perhaps we can compromise, but first we have to acknowledge precisely what it is we're compromising about. edit: Wow, I can't believe this got modded down. I guess the true believers in the "No really, it's the other guys' fault" die hard.

DevX101 15y ago
I'd caution against taking the Republican's word that they want a 'small government'. History contradicts this assertion -- the last 3 republican administrations increased the budget deficit. I think Republicans want to allocate funding differently from the Democrats, but I'm not so sure they want to do any kind of 'small government'.
- achompas 15y ago
  Amen. 100% of problems mentioned by grandparent (Bush tax cuts, Medicare prescription bill, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) were enacted by a Republican president.
- tertius 15y ago
  You can increase the deficit and still want smaller government. Not saying that that was the case, but you could be misunderstood in saying what you have.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Exactly, that was what I was saying about "starve the beast".
18pfsmt 15y ago
In genereal, I agree with what you have written. However, it seems the OP's debate, and most of others, overlook an adjacent idea that used to be one of the more serious disputes of our country. That is: The debate over Federal vs. State governments, and which entity should be concerned with which issue(s). I would prefer that states that want more government involvement implement that at the state level. The states could then better compete as more people (and companies) would move to the states where they agreed more fully with the rest of the population. If one looks at the US Constitution, it appears (IMO) most concerns were originally and explicitly intended to be left to the states, and reading Jefferson's writings it appears even more so. This has the added benefit that we can probably bring more transparency and accountability to state legislators because of the smaller network size.
MrHobbes 15y ago
I don't know, but I think that you are reading far too much into each party's alleged ideological stances. As far as I can tell, both modern political parties seem to agree that spending is the best way to go about governing. Yes, I know that one party talks about cuts a lot and the other party talks about spending a lot, but what do they actually do? Wars? Wars are expensive. Entitlements? Well, entitlement spending is also quite expensive. Neither party will be the first one to threaten social security. Neither party will be the one to threaten medicare. Sure, there will be lots of hand-waving and other forms of gesticulation, but no elected politician in their right mind will take a hatchet to the programs that benefit America's senior citizens. It's just not good politics in a nation with a rapid electoral cycle. (Who votes? Answer that question and you can usually go from there.) Ideologies - they don't matter. Grandiose claims of some great idealogical divide are wonderful to hear (and great for motivating the base), but what is actually done in practice? Well, the answer is whatever gets you re-elected. Which tends to be lots of sound and lots of fury but very little in the way of action.
jbooth 15y ago
Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? I don't think even Bernie Sanders is on the record with something like that. Fox News saying what democrats think is not what democrats think. Which Democratic spending initiatives are contributing to the current deficit? The Democratic war in Iraq, or the Democratic Homeland Security Dept? The Democratic Medicare Part D? You can argue the stimulus but that spending was all temporary and is gone by next year. The healthcare bill reduced gov't healthcare spending (and the tea party ran against it on a obama-is-taking-away-your-medicare scare campaign, I remember the attack ads, irony is not dead). 1999 wasn't that long ago. We had a surplus. The ideological split is mostly the result of opportunism by Tea Party commentators/legislators and the complete illegitimacy of any Democratic president in the eyes of about 50% of Republicans. Democrats will bend over backwards to not be perceived as ideological, as we saw last week.
- lmkg 15y ago
  You won't find any Democrats using the phrase "Big Government" because it's a loaded, derogatory phrase. Nonetheless, the Democratic platform is generally in favor of spending on social services, like welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and education, as well as generally favoring higher amounts of regulation for businesses and industries. Some of these positions are relative: keep the same amount of environmental regulations instead of reducing them, or cut education but by a smaller amount than oil subsidies. Some of them are contingent on the economic climate: avoiding cuts instead of increasing spending. But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. They just don't come out and say so because that would be politically disadvantageous.
  - subsection1h 15y ago
    But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. How can you just toss "excepting defense/security" in a parenthetical like that? I'll never understand how some people can be discussing the size of size of government and then essentially ignore military spending (of which much has little to do with defense or security) and governmental abuses of power for the sake of security theater. NPR? Big government. PBS? Big government. Rendition and torture? Not so much. Belongs in a parenthetical.
someone13 15y ago
Without touching on your main point at all, it's a shame you got downmodded. I gave you my upmod, for what it's worth.
daniel_solano 15y ago
While I agree that there is a fundamental division of ideologies of what precisely the federal government ought to be amongst the American people, I disagree that it is a division between the two parties. In my opinion, the establishment in Washington consisting of the bureaucracy and life-long politicians is generally pro-government and pro-spending. The Republicans pay a lot of lip service to small government, but it is only the Tea Party types like Ron Paul that actually fight for smaller government.
sliverstorm 15y ago
It's like California, but on a larger scale! Makes you wonder if the real answer is to split up the US. Happened plenty of times to other countries over ideology- though each half could stand to lose a lot, seeing as various capabilities and industries are not evenly spread across the nation.
subsection1h 15y ago
Wow, I can't believe this got modded down. You wrote, "the Republicans want a small government." Do you believe that the attributes of a "small government" include endless wars, redition, torture, warantless wiretapping, racial profiling, police brutality, merger of church and state, etc.?
tybris 15y ago
I don't recognize your description of the political landscape. Republicans don't do any more to shrink government than Democrats do to expand it. This has never been true. They do have different priorities. Republicans think the government should be like your father who protects good citizens from harm by fighting bad citizens and foreign threats. Democrats think the government should be like your mother who nurtures and cares for all of its citizens. As science and economics are showing us a mixture of father and mother turns out to work best, the political differences between Republicans and Democrats are shrinking every year. As a consequence, the parties feel it is necessary to distantiate themselves more and especially the Republicans have spent several decades creating a vast narrative around where their priorities lie. Unfortunately, this has led to big changes in voter's habbits and ideological perspectives. Wealthy opportunists have helped promote and taken advantage of the narrative to push an agenda of lower taxes for the rich in return for lavish campaign funding. A group of people bought into the narrative too deeply and now think that the myths about taxes they heared over the years are the hard facts, and that Democrats have misguided beliefs. Supported by the wealthy opportunists, these people have taken control of the Republican party and its policies. This is a corruption that has taken many years to develop, but now runs deeply into the belief systems of voters and the wallets of politicians.

by hugh3 15y ago

DevX101 15y ago

I'd caution against taking the Republican's word that they want a 'small government'. History contradicts this assertion -- the last 3 republican administrations increased the budget deficit. I think Republicans want to allocate funding differently from the Democrats, but I'm not so sure they want to do any kind of 'small government'.

achompas 15y ago
Amen. 100% of problems mentioned by grandparent (Bush tax cuts, Medicare prescription bill, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) were enacted by a Republican president.
tertius 15y ago
You can increase the deficit and still want smaller government. Not saying that that was the case, but you could be misunderstood in saying what you have.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Exactly, that was what I was saying about "starve the beast".

18pfsmt 15y ago

In genereal, I agree with what you have written. However, it seems the OP's debate, and most of others, overlook an adjacent idea that used to be one of the more serious disputes of our country. That is: The debate over Federal vs. State governments, and which entity should be concerned with which issue(s). I would prefer that states that want more government involvement implement that at the state level. The states could then better compete as more people (and companies) would move to the states where they agreed more fully with the rest of the population. If one looks at the US Constitution, it appears (IMO) most concerns were originally and explicitly intended to be left to the states, and reading Jefferson's writings it appears even more so. This has the added benefit that we can probably bring more transparency and accountability to state legislators because of the smaller network size.

MrHobbes 15y ago

I don't know, but I think that you are reading far too much into each party's alleged ideological stances. As far as I can tell, both modern political parties seem to agree that spending is the best way to go about governing. Yes, I know that one party talks about cuts a lot and the other party talks about spending a lot, but what do they actually do? Wars? Wars are expensive. Entitlements? Well, entitlement spending is also quite expensive. Neither party will be the first one to threaten social security. Neither party will be the one to threaten medicare. Sure, there will be lots of hand-waving and other forms of gesticulation, but no elected politician in their right mind will take a hatchet to the programs that benefit America's senior citizens. It's just not good politics in a nation with a rapid electoral cycle. (Who votes? Answer that question and you can usually go from there.) Ideologies - they don't matter. Grandiose claims of some great idealogical divide are wonderful to hear (and great for motivating the base), but what is actually done in practice? Well, the answer is whatever gets you re-elected. Which tends to be lots of sound and lots of fury but very little in the way of action.

jbooth 15y ago

Can you find me a recording of any Democratic officeholder saying they're "for Big Government"? I don't think even Bernie Sanders is on the record with something like that. Fox News saying what democrats think is not what democrats think. Which Democratic spending initiatives are contributing to the current deficit? The Democratic war in Iraq, or the Democratic Homeland Security Dept? The Democratic Medicare Part D? You can argue the stimulus but that spending was all temporary and is gone by next year. The healthcare bill reduced gov't healthcare spending (and the tea party ran against it on a obama-is-taking-away-your-medicare scare campaign, I remember the attack ads, irony is not dead). 1999 wasn't that long ago. We had a surplus. The ideological split is mostly the result of opportunism by Tea Party commentators/legislators and the complete illegitimacy of any Democratic president in the eyes of about 50% of Republicans. Democrats will bend over backwards to not be perceived as ideological, as we saw last week.

lmkg 15y ago
You won't find any Democrats using the phrase "Big Government" because it's a loaded, derogatory phrase. Nonetheless, the Democratic platform is generally in favor of spending on social services, like welfare, unemployment benefits, Social Security, and education, as well as generally favoring higher amounts of regulation for businesses and industries. Some of these positions are relative: keep the same amount of environmental regulations instead of reducing them, or cut education but by a smaller amount than oil subsidies. Some of them are contingent on the economic climate: avoiding cuts instead of increasing spending. But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. They just don't come out and say so because that would be politically disadvantageous.
- subsection1h 15y ago
  But in general, yes, the Democrats do envision a larger government role in society (excepting defense/security) than Republicans do. How can you just toss "excepting defense/security" in a parenthetical like that? I'll never understand how some people can be discussing the size of size of government and then essentially ignore military spending (of which much has little to do with defense or security) and governmental abuses of power for the sake of security theater. NPR? Big government. PBS? Big government. Rendition and torture? Not so much. Belongs in a parenthetical.

someone13 15y ago

Without touching on your main point at all, it's a shame you got downmodded. I gave you my upmod, for what it's worth.

daniel_solano 15y ago

While I agree that there is a fundamental division of ideologies of what precisely the federal government ought to be amongst the American people, I disagree that it is a division between the two parties. In my opinion, the establishment in Washington consisting of the bureaucracy and life-long politicians is generally pro-government and pro-spending. The Republicans pay a lot of lip service to small government, but it is only the Tea Party types like Ron Paul that actually fight for smaller government.

sliverstorm 15y ago

It's like California, but on a larger scale! Makes you wonder if the real answer is to split up the US. Happened plenty of times to other countries over ideology- though each half could stand to lose a lot, seeing as various capabilities and industries are not evenly spread across the nation.

subsection1h 15y ago

Wow, I can't believe this got modded down. You wrote, "the Republicans want a small government." Do you believe that the attributes of a "small government" include endless wars, redition, torture, warantless wiretapping, racial profiling, police brutality, merger of church and state, etc.?

tybris 15y ago

I don't recognize your description of the political landscape. Republicans don't do any more to shrink government than Democrats do to expand it. This has never been true. They do have different priorities. Republicans think the government should be like your father who protects good citizens from harm by fighting bad citizens and foreign threats. Democrats think the government should be like your mother who nurtures and cares for all of its citizens. As science and economics are showing us a mixture of father and mother turns out to work best, the political differences between Republicans and Democrats are shrinking every year. As a consequence, the parties feel it is necessary to distantiate themselves more and especially the Republicans have spent several decades creating a vast narrative around where their priorities lie. Unfortunately, this has led to big changes in voter's habbits and ideological perspectives. Wealthy opportunists have helped promote and taken advantage of the narrative to push an agenda of lower taxes for the rich in return for lavish campaign funding. A group of people bought into the narrative too deeply and now think that the myths about taxes they heared over the years are the hard facts, and that Democrats have misguided beliefs. Supported by the wealthy opportunists, these people have taken control of the Republican party and its policies. This is a corruption that has taken many years to develop, but now runs deeply into the belief systems of voters and the wallets of politicians.