Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Matt Welch in the New York Post: "It's the Big Government, Stupid"
In Sunday's New York Post, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch takes a look at attempts to divine meaning from this summer's mild political kerfuffles, and concludes that the simplest answer may be the most obvious one. Column begins like this:
It's been a hilarious August, watching media supporters of President Obama's health care package puzzle over the obscure motivations of the noncompliant Americans rallying against it.
"Racial anxiety," guessed New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.
"Nihilism," theorized Time's Joe Klein.
"The crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy," historian Rick Perlstein proclaimed in the Washington Post.
While the commentariat's condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama's room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren't very keen about the government barging into their lives.
Whole thing, including a Top 10 list of Obama government grabs, here.
Seer|8.22.09 @ 10:22PM|#
Not a NYP fan personally.
Also, check out their comments on the article. So far just a ton of
conservatives who are using the same lame anti-Obama quips I heard
last November and one Democrat arguing that because Bush tripled
the government, that no one can criticize Obama for expanding
government either.
hmm|8.22.09 @ 10:38PM|#
Nice article. The comments will of course be all YA or hate
filled you evil conservative posts.
The sole progressive comment so far was worth the read.
What's the bugaboo about "Big Government" anyway? Our government tripled in size under the Bush Administration and no Republicans complained about it then!
The more people in government, the more we can handle the problems of the country.
|8.23.09 @ 12:10AM|#
"What's the bugaboo about "Big Government" anyway? Our
government tripled in size under the Bush Administration and no
Republicans complained about it then!
The more people in government, the more we can handle the problems
of the country."
Whoa! That comment is genius and completely changes how I view this
issue. Maybe if the commenter was supported by the govt so his blog
could be read by millions of people, all would be well.
I hope some more people on this thread independently come to the
same conclusion about this amazing comment too.
Mike Laursen|8.23.09 @ 12:51AM|#
I think it's genius, too. My only question is whether we can have absolutely everybody work in government, or if we, like, have to reserve at least one person to be the governed.
wingnutx|8.23.09 @ 1:27AM|#
The more people in government, the more we can handle the
problems of the country.
We should just put everyone in the government.
JB|8.23.09 @ 1:49AM|#
The more people in government, the more we can handle the
problems of the country.
1000% of people should work for the government.
Art-P.O.G.|8.23.09 @ 6:54AM|#
Can't you wingnuts see that a team of bureaucrats can handle your life better than you ever could (and if you're on that team of bureaucrats, even better)?
Art-P.O.G.|8.23.09 @ 6:56AM|#
I'm including you in this, too, Tony! Can't you see that more bureaucrats makes the government more efficient?
Hugh Akston|8.23.09 @ 7:43AM|#
The more people in government, the more we can handle the
problems of the country.
And here I was laboring under the mistaken notion that the people
in government were the problem.
ed|8.23.09 @ 8:44AM|#
Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren't very
keen
about the government barging into their lives.
"But," the Administration apologists smugly counter, "they want
their Medicare! Isn't that government intrusion into their
lives?"
Yes, it is. Except the debate isn't about an entrenched entitlement
program that isn't going away any time soon. It's about taking that
nearly bankrupt program and expanding it tenfold.
Rich|8.23.09 @ 9:06AM|#
My only question is whether we can have absolutely everybody
work in government, or if we, like, have to reserve at least one
person to be the governed.
The workers govern themselves, the way the Founding Fathers
intended. It's like a perpertual motion machine.
|8.23.09 @ 10:15AM|#
"The crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal
ascendancy,"
For a site called "reason" you guys spend an awful lot of time
watering the crazy tree.
|8.23.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Americans didn't vote for big government last November.
Yeah they did. They may have not intended to, but they did.
If they really wanted to not vote for big government, they should
have voted as to result in divided government.
Colin|8.23.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Good article -- too bad it wasn't published in a liberal
paper.
He's basically preaching to the choir.
Hugh Akston|8.23.09 @ 11:27AM|#
Colin, a liberal objective responsible newspaper would never run an article like this. Can't be a party to Matt's bought-and-paid-for disinformation and scaremongering, don't you know.
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 12:20PM|#
They may have not intended to, but they did.
They voted for the brother. There's a difference, in theory.
Hobo Chang Ba|8.23.09 @ 12:40PM|#
They voted for the brother. There's a difference, in
theory.
Hahaha, "Big Brotha"
The Libertarian Guy|8.23.09 @ 12:51PM|#
"The more people in government, the more we can handle the
problems of the country."
No wonder we're fucked, with thinking like that.
The Libertarian Guy|8.23.09 @ 12:53PM|#
Tony | August 23, 2009, 6:52am | #
It's not the size the counts, but how you use it, of course.
***
Using it when it isn't asked for, consent-wise, is called "rape",
Tony.
You statists really know how to fuck people, in other words.
|8.23.09 @ 12:56PM|#
Yes, it is. Except the debate isn't about an entrenched
entitlement program that isn't going away any time soon. It's about
taking that nearly bankrupt program and expanding it
tenfold.
But that's not what a lot of the protesters are complaining about.
They're afraid that expanding the program to others will mean less
largesse for themselves. Hardly lines up with Welch's assertion
that Americans don't like the government getting involved in their
lives.
And I'm no Obama apologist, just a realist law-and-order
libertarian who recognizes that the enemy of my enemy is not nec my
friend.
The Libertarian Guy|8.23.09 @ 12:56PM|#
"Can't you wingnuts see that a team of bureaucrats can handle
your life better than you ever could (and if you're on that team of
bureaucrats, even better)?"
Got that right, Art. Hell, once the Dems finally stab the last
stake in the heart of the private sector, they'll REALLY roll up
their sleeves and start "helping" the people.
First step: Matching uniforms, mandatory morning workouts,
rationing of razor blades and toilet paper, and a job for everyone
at the local Newspeak center.
Where have all the proofreader|8.23.09 @ 1:09PM|#
Generally competent analysis, but I die a little inside when I
read unedited lines like this one:
The message of the various Tea Party protests, which predated
this summer's ahistorical media panic over town hall "lynch mobs,"
has been pretty simple, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks,
the nonprofit that has helped organize the protests, told Reason
magazine this spring.
Yikes.
PantsFan|8.23.09 @ 1:28PM|#
For a site called "reason" you guys spend an awful lot of
time watering the crazy tree.
It's finally noon here, so
DRINK!
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 1:34PM|#
Tulpa, They're afraid that expanding the program to others
will mean less largesse for themselves.
In a round-a-bout way, that may be true. If we go Zimbabwe-wise,
then not getting what they do get now is the least of their
problems, and they know that. Isn't it fair to acknowledge that,
considering the vocal opposition to the "stimulus" spending came
first?
Mike M.|8.23.09 @ 1:40PM|#
The more people in government, the more we can handle the
problems of the country."
Whoa! That comment is genius and completely changes how I view this
issue. Maybe if the commenter was supported by the govt so his blog
could be read by millions of people, all would be well.
LOL, good one there.
One thing I've noticed over the last few days: when you discover a
sincere liberal progressive who believes that government is going
to "fix" health care and everything else under the sun, if you ask
them WHY they have so much faith in the government to do all these
things well, you never get any sort of intelligent, reasoned
response.
|8.23.09 @ 2:25PM|#
I don't know why this is so hard for liberals to understand.
Most people are not that political. Most people were not cheering
on Bush as he spent. They were at best tolerating it because they
didn't trust the Democrats to prevent another 9-11. Then when they
grew tired of the spending and didn't trust the Republicans on
terrorism anymore than they did the Democrats, they threw the
Republicans out. Not even Bush's strongest supporters ever loved
his big spending. They tolerated it as a necessary evil.
To put it in simple terms, the Democrats are shocked the country is
revolting over big spending even though the country threw the
Republicans out primarily for the sin of running up the deficit.
Honestly, do they think the Republicans lost control of Congress
because the deficit wasn't big enough?
|8.23.09 @ 2:46PM|#
I've seen the whole, "Bush spent lots of money first" argument
peddled around a lot. And no, libertarians were not sitting on
their hands during this time either. SOme conservatives looked the
other way, but let's remember, before 2008 and tarp, Bush's biggest
deficit was about 500 billion. And yes, that includes the military
spending. I've heard a lot of people argue that Bush's war spending
isn't included in official figures, because military spending bills
were passed off the budget, but the truth is that mid year spending
bills still get factored into the budget anyway. The Bush deficit
peaked midway through his 8 years and then began to taper off. For
about a year or two, the deficit actually shrank as a percentage of
GDP. The spending that we've already seen, plus Obama's proposed
deficits, are already higher than any deficit that occured under
Bush. The borrowing that occured before the TARP bailout (started
under Bush) seems quaint now. That is why people are
protesting.
I'm not defending Bush at all. After all, he was the one who got
the ball rolling with TARP. However, to argue that libertarians and
conservatives were sitting on their hands while Bush was in power,
only taking to the streets now because of racist and partisan
motivations, is disingenuous. Clearly there is a difference between
the borrowing that took place up to TARP, and the borrowing and
government intervention of the bailout era. All people on the left
want to argue is that since there weren't people in the streets
during the Bush years proper that the people protesting now must
have something else driving them. They're simply ignoring the
difference between the borrowing before 2008 and the borrowing
we're going to see over the next few years.
|8.23.09 @ 3:12PM|#
To put it in simple terms, the Democrats are shocked the
country is revolting over big spending even though the country
threw the Republicans out primarily for the sin of running up the
deficit.
No. Full stop. There was something else going on in 2006 that was
damned unpopular. You know, the thing you like to mock Obama for
continuing.
You're right though, in saying that most people are not political.
But you then try to have your cake and eat it too when you say that
despite not being political, they're viscerally concerned with the
federal deficit. I repeat: the people protesting at the town halls
are by and large concerned with losing out on *their* federal
money, not with long-term projections of economic doom. Coupled
with Palin's "death panel" idiocy (albeit useful idiocy) this is
what's driving the people to protest.
If you seriously think the people love limited government but those
durned politicians refuse to give it to them, you haven't been
paying attention the last 80 years. True, there have been brief
spurts of limited govt popularity, most recently in the mid-late
90s, but these only crop up during economic good times. You're
certainly not seeing it now.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to apologize for Obama, but
deluding ourselves about what the American people want isn't
helping anyone.
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 3:24PM|#
the people protesting at the town halls are by and large
concerned with losing out on *their* federal money
Yeah, taxes go up to pay for more government intervention.
And yes, they defend the smaller programs against something bigger.
Do they realize both are unsustainable? Do they realize neither are
strictly Constitutional? Do they understand that once it's passed
it's not going away, because bread and circuses become an
expectation?
Some do, some don't, but in aggregate I have no idea how it splits.
Again, the tea parties which preceeded this indicate somebody's
actually aware of the problem with tax-and-spend Democrats.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|8.23.09 @ 4:25PM|#
tkwelge
I'm not defending Bush at all. After all, he was the one who
got the ball rolling with TARP.
True enough and I won't defend Bush either. But if the TARP deficit
puts the final nail in the Obamacare and Carbon Tax coffins, I'm
going to have thank Bush for his unintended benevolence.
It is possible to eventually pay off debt, even staggering loads of
it. But it is impossible to pay off beyond-your-means spending each
and every single year, on programs that will never ever ever go
away. Which is what Obamacare will be.
The Carbon Tax might hurt today if it passed, but I suspect it
won't hurt too much before the political motivations to damp it
down become overwhelming. Though it would probably still become a
little sandbox for congress to piss away some fraction of American
productivity, for ever and ever amen. Better that it never sees the
light of day.
Tulpa,
but deluding ourselves about what the American people want
isn't helping anyone.
Sure enough. About half of them are Big Government Democracts of
various flavors. The other half is a rudderless mongrel mix with
its own dose of Big Government-ism. The only real disagreement in
the American majority, is just which parts of government should be
made just how big. But this is a democracy so in the long run we
compromise and give everybody the chance to make their preferred
part big, to something approximating their preference.
The American people have been split roughly down the middle since,
oh, maybe the time of the American Revolution. I seem to remember
there being a Civil War thing happening one time when people got
really serious about disagreeing.
|8.23.09 @ 4:25PM|#
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1970_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=H0-fed&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&col=c
Okay, so i was wrong, the debt didn't shrink as a percentage of GDP
during the Bush years, but look at the increase over Bush's entire
presidency (up to tarp) and the increase projected for 2009-20010.
WHen Bush was inaugurated, the debt was 57% of GDP. In 2007, it was
65%. By 2008, with tarp, debt as a percentage of GDP was 70% and by
2010 the debt is projected to be 98% of GDP. That is something that
has never happened.
|8.23.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Well, okay as a percentage of GDP debt was over 100% during WW2. But that was over a short period of time. Nobody has any idea when we'll even be able to start reducing the debts growth to a comfortable level, let alone reducing the debt itself.
|8.23.09 @ 4:31PM|#
People who are claiming that conservatives and libertarians are two faced for not having tea parties under Bush are sorta missing the big picture.
jtuf|8.23.09 @ 5:02PM|#
Quite true, tkwelge. I think there were no tea parties under Bush, because social networking wasn't as big back then. Plenty of conservative talk show hosts railled against Bush's statists policies.
|8.23.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Rush Limbaugh even had an entire day dedicated to criticizing Bush's prescription drug plan.
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 5:19PM|#
And under Bush no minarchist was saying spending all that was a good thing, yet statists call protesting even-greater spending hypocritical, because they have no argument beside authoritarianism (government by experts is for your own good!).
|8.23.09 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm not defending Bush at all. After all, he was the one who
got the ball rolling with TARP.
That would be the TARP that McCain and Obama took time out
from campaigning to go to DC and twist arms to supoort,
right?
The same TARP that Democrats in the house voted 242 - 10 to pass (3
NV)? The one that house GOPers voted 156 - 10 to reject (4
NV)?
Yeah, it was too goddam little and too fucking late for the
Republicans to act fiscally responsible but make no mistake about
it, TARP was a Bush/Dem accomplishment.*
* Fiasco seems more appropriate.
CH|8.23.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Please don't link to NY Post articles. The more you support
Murdoch's media company, the more you sound like a Bill O'Reilly
"THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THEY WERE 30 YEARS AGO AND I'M
ANGRY/SCARED" Republican. The Post is one of the many reasons
people associate fiscal conservatism with crazy assholes.
There's nothing wrong with the article itself, but it's the fruit
of a poisonous tree.
hmm|8.23.09 @ 6:30PM|#
I heard Fox news is evil and CNN and MSNBC shit sunshine and uncorns. Is this true?
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 6:42PM|#
I dunno, I think Bush not vetoing it was a brilliant political move, and probably fomented dissatisfaction with it (not that it was the right thing to allow to pass). Socialists don't want to blame him immediately for something that they push so hard and are taking the blame for. It's rather delicious, but only to a similar extent to that of Afganistan suddenly being a righteous war when directed by The Right People.
Reality|8.23.09 @ 6:45PM|#
So why didn't you racist Rethuglicans bring your small-penis compensating guns to your anti-Bush spending Teabagger parties....Oh wait,cause you didn't HAVE any! It's OK for a White man to recklessly spend to kill brown people but now there is something wrong with investing in our children's future
hmm|8.23.09 @ 6:51PM|#
You really need to bone up on your trolling, reading skills,
understanding of this site (see reading skills, and understanding
of the ellipsis.
For the record I like pumpkin pie with whip cream. I also have one
mean spatula.
|8.23.09 @ 6:57PM|#
It's OK for a White man to recklessly spend to kill brown
people
Only if it's Chuck Norris, or an agent acting with his
permission.
Anonymous|8.23.09 @ 7:26PM|#
I also have one mean spatula.
They cost a dollar. Don't take the abuse, dude.
|8.24.09 @ 12:40AM|#
I don't know why this is so hard for liberals to understand.
Most people are not that political.
You have to understand that from their perspective, everything is,
or should be, political. In their ideal society, the distribution
of resources would be determined by a democratic political process,
not the market. They want everyone to be involved in a communal
decision making process about the distrubion of those resources and
the organization of society. Consequently, being "political" is a
sort of moral duty. Not participating the political process is like
being in a commune and not showing up for the weekly house
meetings.
Also, they seem to think that everyone wants to "belong" to some
kind of communal social group, and regard individualism as some
kind of pathological condition brought about by excessive
commercialism. it hasn't occured to them that some people (normal,
sane, healthy people), just aren't joiners and are naturally
asocial.
mark|8.24.09 @ 2:56AM|#
You must be referring to socialists, Hazel. Or some other
equally appropriate word, but not "liberals"; I would like to have
that word back, thank you very much.
What's interesting is that I feel like buying one of the "IF YOU'RE
NOT COMPLETELY APPALLED, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION" bumper
stickers from those socialists who demanded you get involved in
politics back in the early Bush years. Do I have to apologize to a
socialist for not having the bumper sticker back then, or does he
have to apologize to me for taking it off his car, now of all
times?
Sean W. Malone|8.24.09 @ 4:23AM|#
"liberal" is a word we're never getting back, Mark... I'm sorry to say.
|8.24.09 @ 2:10PM|#
I'd like the word back too. And I agree, I prefer to use "progressives". But it was the word John originally used, so I went with it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245