If you reread my statements, you will realize there is no implication that we need more government. As an ideologue, you have projected onto my statements a pos

If you reread my statements, you will realize there is no implication that we need more government. As an ideologue, you have projected onto my statements a position that you want to argue with. To say that the government never relinquishes power is a statement of ideology, not fact. The Supreme Court, a branch of the government, has taken away government power to regulate political donations to PACs, and decided that certain state governments are not beholden to the federal government while modifying voting policies. There are two examples. Repeal of Glass-Steagall is a congressional example. Federalist political movements only make sense in the context of reform to shrink the power of the federal government. "any implication that the government is hugely understaffed and desperately needs to grow larger is an ideological claim I'll dispute." This is only an ideological position if you view the rule of law as a ideology. I guess it is, but it's the foundation of civilization, so it shouldn't be controversial. If the government passes laws, it should enforce them. Currently it doesn't have the staff to enforce passed laws. That is a statement of fact. YOUR position, by comparison, IS ideological, because you are holding that the government has more employees than you would prefer based on your political beliefs.