June 15, 2008
The Overt Hypocrisy of McCain & Republicans' Tired Old 'Big Government' Argument

There are two fundamental flaws in the dead-horse argument of Republicans that Liberals and Democrats want a "big government". Primarily, what was once a hands-off approach to federal governance has evolved rapidly in recent years to a large-scale intrusion of federal law into the personal lives of U.S. citizens. Secondly, the modern political appeal to the lowest common denominator has enlisted U.S. citizens to depend rhetorically on the federal government to "solve" and "fix" the problems in their lives. It's more cut and dry to break down the first flaw, but the second is a more nebulous entity floating on the whim of market demand.

Spawning from a late '70's renaissance in Conservative rhetoric and activism, "big government" became a rallying cry that has survived to the present day. As a reaction to Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates for a more transparent and responsible federal government, Ronald Reagan capitalized in the 1980 election on the concept that Conservatives and Republicans originally wanted a less centralized government. The argument followed that Liberals and Democrats were attempting to enact more laws and taxes to intrude on the everyday lives of U.S. citizens, thus resulting in a more centralized, "bigger" government.

As a self-enterprising U.S. citizen, I believe strongly in a free enterprise, free-trade, private initiative and agree with many of these Conservative precepts. I want any and all freedoms to do my business as I please. These rights have been afforded to the U.S. financial markets, but these rights have not been awarded to citizens with supposedly controversial morals. The rights to abortion and gay marriage have been thwarted by a "bigger", more centralized executive and judicial branch at all crossroads. Homeland Security has compromised privacy with wire tapping and personal screening, involving the federal government in peoples' personal lives. As the Republican party began based on individual liberties, a growing socially conservative movement has altered the party into a more activist, ideological entity.

As gas prices, health care, and a credit crunch hit everyone's pocket book, the traditional politician aims to capitalize. Simultaneously, consumers presumptively expect their government to "fix" things. Without their own participation and a semblance of citizen activism, a complacent constituency empowers a centralized government. Note how the 2008 Democratic primary caucuses were demeaned by mainstreamed outlets as run by "activists" and "party loyalists". The stigmas attached implied that punching a chad in a voting booth was in essence more democratic than the consensus-laced meetings of voting caucuses. As voters apparently don't have time to go out and caucus, they're expected to sit back and wait for the government to solve problems. Citizens busy with their personal lives are then preyed upon with cookie cutter tag-lines, fast food politics, and lofty campaign promises. As conditions become more and more dire, a desperate public is ripe for a politician's picking. Surprisingly, many Conservative and Republican voters who argue for a less centralized government also want more government aid with their lives' personal issues, and prefer more laws based on moral principles.

The Iraq War has little to do with the general "size" of Barack Obama's impending executive branch. The War is George W. Bush's legacy. Obama's lofty campaign promises with the War can only be judged in context to Bush's formation and handling of the War. A war on foreign soil is also only minimally related to how the government governs its own constituency. Obama's campaign promises with healthcare are actually not too lofty. He only promises to make it affordable, unlike the previous proposal to make it "universal" with a mandate and new set of federal laws that would've expanded the reach of the federal government. The Gas Tax Holiday is a classic tag line of fast food politics, appealing to the short term with little regard for long-term ramifications to future generations of U.S. citizens. John McCain has criticized Obama for not proposing enough to "fix" the national credit "crisis". McCain has consequently proposed more government intervention. He's reaching for the lowest common denominator in the bottom of what's looking more and more like a pork barrel.