What Conservatives Mean When They Say “Small Government”

Liberals and people raised by liberal news-entertainment media have no idea what the concept of small government is, so they interpret it in ways that are advantageous to them, namely by arguing that any use of government goes against the conservative concept of small government.

In actuality, “small government” means non-ideological government, which necessarily in turn means a government that is limited in size, scope, role and power. When we appoint government in loco parentis as a caretaker of its citizens, it gets a blank check for power and taxation, and consequently begins growth until it becomes a major industry in its own right, which destabilizes both the economy and social order.

Notice how throughout American history, ideological wars have expanded the power of government, starting with the Civil War. Our presidency provides an excellent example of the increasing power of government:

The modern era of dominant presidential power arguably began with Franklin D. Roosevelt, who aggressively pushed a New Deal agenda through a complacent Congress in order to pull the nation out of the Great Depression. Before that, in the early 20th and 19th centuries, Congress dominated national policy making except in times of war. World War II further extended the power of the presidency and the role of the federal government in the economy, and thrust the United States into a leadership role in world affairs. That superpower cape grew longer during the decades-long Cold War, with the authorities of the commander-in-chief expanding in the arena of national security and foreign policy. As “Triumph & Tragedies” reminds us, it was the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. who in the early 1970s first described this fundamental shift in power as the era of the “imperial presidency.” Even Schlesinger could not foresee the expansive powers that would accrue to American presidents in the post-9/11 era.

Much as happened in the Soviet Union, increasing size of government leads to government becoming a major industry, which means that any failures of government will take down the economy as it corrects for the missing value. We can see this in the Keynesian-socialist hybrid invented by FDR that endures like a zombie today as the platform of the Left:

Hillary Clinton wants to use government compulsion to artificially create the benefits of robust economic growth (including reduced income inequality) without any actual economic growth. Clinton’s website contains a section titled “Five important steps Hillary Clinton will take to reduce inequality and grow our economy.” Even the title puts the (income inequality) cart before the (economic growth) horse. But her policies would actually focus on reducing inequality at the expense of growth and, in the process, fail to achieve either goal.

Growth is part of the circular Ponzi scheme where government taxes the middle class, dumps the money on the impoverished, who then spend it on the entertainment and services economy familiar to any watcher of Idiocracy, which increases the value of the firms at which the middle class works at and, hopefully, “trickles down” to those middle classes.

Unlike actual “trickle down” (more accurately: “a rising tide lifts all boats”) theory which works by increasing the value of the economy through private enterprise and therefore, gives greater purchasing power to the individual, the Leftist plan increases the number of xogbux — issued by the Xenophile Occupation Government — so that the silly voters feel like they are winning something. But since those xogbux are backed by government, not actual production, they are false value and nothing trickles down.

The solution to this, as many conservatives have hinted, is to obliterate the ideological role of government and therefore, necessarily remove the welfare state and other parts of the more than half of our budget which goes to entitlements. Return government to its role as defender of the people against external threats, and let society organize itself by cultural and social means. This is what the Left fears will happen, and they are fighting against it with big government, apparently oblivious to the lesson of history which shows they will self-destruct by achieving victory.

Tags: , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading