Bad News for People Who Like Big Government

The current issue of The American Prospect is the first one produced in years where I haven't been present at editorial meetings where people discussing upcoming articles, thus ruining the surprise when the issue actually comes out. Thus imagine my shock when I discovered it included not one, but two articles indicating that despite the public's recent leftward turn and the relatively bright prospects for Democratic gains in 2008, that there's a great deal of voter skepticism about large new government programs. First, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira warn that the "Emerging Democratic Majority" requires the support of independent voters whose appetite for big government is limited:

The new Democratic coalition is center-left; independents are more toward the center, especially on fiscal and economic issues, than Democratic identifiers are. In California, independents backed moderate Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2006 by virtually the same margin they had given John Kerry over George W. Bush in 2004. Democrats will continue to attract independents -- and independents will make up a significant ideological segment of the Democratic majority -- so long as Democrats don't forget the "center" part of center-left and so long as Republicans remain on the right, especially on social issues.

In the second article, Stanley Greenberg reports:

The results of a February study we conducted for Democracy Corps that assessed people's attitudes toward government stunned us. By 57 percent to 29 percent, Americans believe that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life instead of helping people. Sixty-two percent in a Pew study said they believe elected officials don't care what people like them think, and the same number believe that whenever something is run by the government it is probably inefficient and wasteful. The Democracy Corps study found that an emphatic 83 percent say that if the government had more money, it would waste it rather than spend it well.

I could imagine finding grounds on which to quibble with these results, but considering the source they're pretty striking and seem pretty firm to me. Ed Kilgore looks at these same article and concludes that Democrats need to embrace a tough reform agenda to rebuild public faith in the possibility of effective government action:

Some Democrats understandably hope that "Happy Days Are Here Again" in terms of progressive public activism, and many may well think of "accountability in government" as a 1990s gimmick or even as an accomodation of conservative anti-government sentiment. But as Greenberg shows and passionately argues, progressive cannot rescue the country from the Bush disaster unless we first clearly re-establish our own, and government's, ability to get things done right.

I don't think we should create false choices here. Something like Barack Obama's just-announced good government agenda strikes me as both a fairly pointless gimmick and a an accommodation of conservative anti-government sentiment. But it's also probably a good gimmick that could help those who embrace it to win elections. A gimmick, after all, isn't necessarily a bad thing to have in a campaign.

Comments

Part of it is the Bush record, but don't discount the generation-long period of progressive overreach, either.

Clinton went a long way towards restoring faith in activist government. The key is to provide value for the taxpayers, not consider them an endless piggy bank for funding anything that sounds like it might be a good idea. I think the major Democratic candidates, in their policy proposals, have spent the revenue from repealing the Bush tax cuts and restoring the estate tax three times over.

Even with the Bush tax cuts, the government has more than enough money. Even with the Bush tax cuts, most of us are overtaxed. Cut out the less important spending to fund more important priorities rather than coming to the taxpayers like a crackhead.

Posted by Adam Herman | June 22, 2007 3:47 PM

requires the support of independent voters whose appetite for big government is limited

It is? You mean we'll be shutting down the interstate highway system and the department of defense soon? Awesome!

Oh wait, you mean their appetite for big government that benefits brown people and poor people is limited. Right, business as usual, carry on.

Posted by Doctor Memory | June 22, 2007 3:59 PM

An incessant chorus of "Everything the government does is wrong (except blow shit up)!" for twenty-five years has an effect.

Whoda' thunkit?

What would we do without the social sciences?

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 22, 2007 4:04 PM

Which ever it is--anti-highway or anti-poor and brown--we'll need the votes of at least some of them.

but don't discount the generation-long period of progressive overreach, either.

I agree a lot with that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 22, 2007 4:07 PM

What's that old line about Americans being theoretically conservative and operationally liberal? We might just be seeing the former part of that dynamic here.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | June 22, 2007 4:07 PM

In my experience as a psychologist of ten years, only two kinds of people hate "Big Government":
1) Child molestors, who are afraid of being caught. To them, big government represents the oedipal parent who abused them.
2) Racists, for whom Big Government is inherently bad as it features the big bad negro in it. These people have a savior complex that disdains the power of government to solve problems.

Posted by Fahimeh | June 22, 2007 4:08 PM

I agree that government has been made to look bad by Republican rhetorical attacks and Republican governance. So, the trick for Democratic politicians will be counter the rhetorics, and show that gov't can get things done. The biggest rhetorical key is to push the notion that our government is a reflection or our country. After all, who are we hiring to run this place, Martians? Turn that attitude around, and Republicans will look silly when they talk about government beaurocrats like they're not really people.

Posted by American Citizen | June 22, 2007 4:15 PM

republicans who promise small government are either 1) stupid or 2) lying. The former if they don't understand how the administrative state has basically created a unitary executive. and lying because no president, regardless of ideological bent, will be willing to shrink the administrative state and thus reduce the power they have over domestic and foreign affairs.

Posted by anon | June 22, 2007 4:31 PM

Whenever these polls ask people questions like "should the rich pay more of their share in taxes," "should we fund more research into developing alternative sources of energy," "should government be doing more to help the poor," etc. you get big majorities in favor of that. It all depends on how you word it. With that said, you also need to capture much of the middle as well, so you have to be efficient a la Scandinavia and not just throw money away and be willing to possibly fundamentally alter programs that aren't working.

Posted by Reality Man | June 22, 2007 4:31 PM

These articles seem basically solid, but I'm not sure they move the conversation forward much.

Regardless of the particulars of what independents support or will vote for in the long run the Dems look fairly likely to pick up the presidency and hold congress (possibly picking up seats in both chambers) in 2008. If that point is reached then were talking about getting past a fillibuster regardless of rather the policies are watered down Clinton policies or comparatively bold left wing proprosals.

If they actually pass big spending measures I wouldn't be too worried about voters abandoning them. Most big social spending programs didn't come in existence with the full understanding of their size and scope by the voters or even the politicians that implemented them. However once they're on the books they are super hard to kill.

I would still be worried that the GOP would just fillibuster anything it could and hope for history to repeat itself.

Regardless I don't see whether people think 'government' makes life easier being a big factor

Posted by ChrisB | June 22, 2007 4:36 PM

Maybe people think government sucks because government sucks? Just a thought.

Posted by Noah Yetter | June 22, 2007 4:53 PM

Why don't they steer the government towards doing something useful for the people instead of feeding the military-industrial complex. Maybe that would help with the independents and all the rest of them Amrecian citizens.

Posted by abb1 | June 22, 2007 5:08 PM

The mistrust of "big government" really just means that government programs need to be framed properly to be accepted. Government-based health care reform tends to get support because the small government approach is hurting. War in Iraq was expensive, but retained widespread support for quite some time because the alternative seemed worse. Thus, where big government is needed, the same people who are against big government support big government.

Concerns about waste in the government are driven by fears of unchecked pork barrel spending and perceived boondoggles like foreign aid. Thus, taxes dedicated to particular programs can counteract the idea that government will misspend increased revenue. To some extent, the large entitlement programs use this trick to retain popularity even when people are against the concept of big government.

Posted by Archit | June 22, 2007 5:33 PM

We could make this the ultimate liberals-vs.-libertarians catch-all thread, or we could talk about what these numbers really mean.

There hasn't been a "leftward shift" in American politics in the last 12 years - there has been an authoritarian shift in the Republican Party, and the Democrats won the honor of "lesser of two evils" for small-government conservatives by default. People who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 because they hated Gore and Kerry haven't changed their minds about the efficiency of government. They've changed their minds about the Republican Party.

If the Democrats interpret the current political winds as a surge in the popularity of circa-1993 liberalism, they'll throw away a lot of that momentum.

I don't think they need to vacillate or move away from progressives to keep that constituency - what they need to do is attack big government conservatism; no-bid contracts, corporate subsidies, etc. Not to mention habeas corpus and torture.

Posted by solarjetman | June 22, 2007 5:48 PM

> If the Democrats interpret the current
> political winds as a surge in the
> popularity of circa-1993 liberalism,
> they'll throw away a lot of that momentum.

I get it: Democrats just need to pick up Republicanism where the Radical Right forked off, clean it up, implement it properly, and run it competently. While stiff-arming the base representing a very large percentage of the US population that got them elected.

Do you have a candidate in mind for this project? Is her name "Hillary" by any chance?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 22, 2007 6:34 PM

The widespread cynicism about government is not evidence based, it is rhetorically-driven. Only a sucker thinks that adressing this "problem" with a 10-point plan to reinvent government will change this situation. Rhetoirc has to be fought with better rhetoric.

Posted by Disturbance | June 22, 2007 6:48 PM

Gee, what did the pollsters expect to find? Reform is definitely a good thing, and might boost public trust in government somewhat. But I don't think we should expect too much from it. People are always going to bitch about government, especially when considered in the abstract. But I'm not sure how much that general attitude has with the positions they take on specific proposals for government action.

Personally, I tend to agree that government generally is wasteful, inefficient, corrupt and in thrall to the powerful. But I think there are a whole bunch of extremely important things the government has to do anyway, even if it is wasteful, inefficient, corrupt and in thrall to the powerful.

I'm for expanded government. I want the government for example, to do more in the way of public investment, play a major role in the health care system, and regulate markets more aggressively. That's not because I think government is just swell, and is likely to accomplish these tasks frugally, efficiently and with as much alacrity as possible. It's because there are certain things that won't get done at all unless government does them. Only governments can make laws, and regulate commerce, for example. What's the alternative? "Let the market decide" how to regulate its own behavior? Leave it up to the private insurance industry to insure people for whom the provision of high-quality insurance is not a profitable enterprise? And how is a private corporation supposed to build a highway from St. Louis to Los Angeles? Without the power of eminent domain, it would presumably have to buy all the land it needs, and negotiate with every little property-owner and town along the way, a process that would surely take a lifetime.

A federal government, especially in a democratic society with competing and sometimes mutually hostile interests and agendas flooding into the government from all directions, and where much of the personnel decisions are made by elections and patronage, rather than a rationalized job search by management, is never going to be as efficient as a for-profit corporation, where competition and bottom line revenue goals drive constant reorganization, productivity improvements and a whip-cracking culture of more, better, faster. Government is just not that kind of beast.

People also have a tendency to take note of the ways government gets in their way, and completely overlook and take for granted the things that work. So sure, I'm all for making government more efficient. But let's be realistic. I would suggest that when proposals for government action are made, they should be made in the form: "the government needs to do X, Y and Z". They probably shouldn't be advanced in the form: "we need the government to do X, Y and Z because government is great and we just need more government"!

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 22, 2007 7:12 PM

I suspect that the anti-government poll findings reflect the old story of people who think they're conservative being operationally liberal. If you ask them abstractly about "government," of course they are anti. But if you put to them questions about concrete programs (like social security) or government's responsibility to tackle concrete policy problems, then they will give "activist" answers. Similarly, self-named "conservatives" far outnumber "liberals" in the polls (generally around 33% vs. a mere 20%) but when you ask them about their actual policy preferences, you get something close to a 50-50 liberal-conservative split.

Posted by Tony Greco | June 22, 2007 7:20 PM

A gimmick, after all, isn't necessarily a bad thing to have in a campaign.

Clinton used the same "gimmick" -- of accomodationg conservative anti-government sentiment -- when he ran in 1992. The results of that "gimmick"? It destroyed the political basis for Clinton's program for universal health care by rendering taboo the most viable and attractive option -- a single-payer system.

Gee, the "gimmick" of triangulating to the philosophy of GOP talk radio gasbags worked so well the first time, why not try it again?

No fucking thanks, idiot.

Posted by moron | June 22, 2007 10:55 PM

How about this? We'll give the government 18% of GDP and they can fund anything they want to fund with it?

If $2.8 trillion or whatever isn't enough, nothing will ever be enough. Spend the money that the government has now wisely, and faith in activist government will be restored. Continue to demand more and more resources from the taxpayers, and confidence in government will decrease.

Posted by ADam Herman | June 23, 2007 7:24 AM

Sixty-two percent in a Pew study said they believe elected officials don't care what people like them think, and the same number believe that whenever something is run by the government it is probably inefficient and wasteful. The Democracy Corps study found that an emphatic 83 percent say that if the government had more money, it would waste it rather than spend it well.

I don't agree that our elected officials waste money. They steal it.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 23, 2007 8:46 AM

"Whenever these polls ask people questions like "should the rich pay more of their share in taxes,""

Well, duh. Whatever the person thinks the rich should pay is what they'll regard as the richs' share. Of course they should pay it, it's a tautology.

Don't fool yourselves, the public isn't nearly as much in your corner as you'd like to think.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 23, 2007 8:48 AM

I'd say there's a healthy skepticism about the value of expanding government in the U.S. Where people see value for money (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, highways, environmental protection), they will continue to support it politically. Where they see it as another giveaway, whether to politically-connected companies or to other groups (and, yes, I suspect there's a racial component to this one), not so much.

When the face of government is the TSA screaming at people to enforce increasingly pointless regulations, or a local authority taking working-class houses to give the land to a developer to build luxury condos and restaurants, I think people are skeptical of getting more of the same.

And whether or not it's true that liberal's just love spending money for its own sake, that suspicion is out there. When different politicians and interest groups start clamoring for more spending, people quickly realize that all of that won't be funded solely by taxes on the rich. The government will have to come after the middle class before long.

Posted by Don K | June 23, 2007 10:04 AM

For a generation, the Republicans have essentially been operating upon the premise that they can blow off the rest of society and - yet - themselves manage anyway. This has been the underlying basis for tax cuts, for downsizing, for outsourcing, and the like. It has underlined Karl Rove's "majority-plus-one" strategy.

Unfortunately for them, when push comes to shove, other people don't need them either. Therefore, for example, workers increasingly rather than devoting their careers to their employer instead have their eyes on the exit door, waiting for the pink slip. The CEO, with his huge salary, has become a joke rather than a beacon one hopes oneself to become someday.

The public, in the 2006 elections, did not endorse the Democrats. Rather, it blew off the Republicans. It returned the Bronx cheer.

This, therefore, is not a solid foundation for resurrecting the New Deal and the Great Society. Hence the difficulties the Democrats since have experienced. Rejection of Republicans is not the same thing as endorsement of Democrats.

Still, the federal government is by no means the only government out there. State and local governments also exist. Speaking as an inhabitant of the Upper Ohio Valley, I am acutely aware that Pittsburgh is far more a cultural and economic hub of my own region than is Columbus, Charleston, or Harrisburg. Transnational organizations are emerging.

These are going, increasingly, to become the focus for governmental action, rather than the old federal systems.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 23, 2007 11:01 AM

Social Security as a Weapon

Beating back Privatization was just the first step. The Economic Right has over the last 24 years systematically used Social Security as the poster child of their Big Government is the Problem mantra and used it as well to block Single Payer. Their whole line would splinter if the American people as a whole came to believe: One, that Social Security as currently configured will deliver 100% of scheduled benefits without changes in payroll tax, benefits or retirement age and that Two, Republicans have been lying to you about the financials for at least a decade.

Now at this point probably 99% would not assent to proposition One. Majorities might agree that there is no immediate crisis, and similar majorities that private accounts wouldn't help in any event, but almost no one would say there is no problem at all, indeed the whole idea sounds absurd.

Which is why this issue is likely to be so powerful politically, no one sees Solvency coming. And it is coming, you just have to examine the numbers first hand. By my estimation they might be able to slip by the 2008 Report (due March 31), but particularly if Democrats capture the White House and ensure that the political influence that has been distorting the Reports over the last seven years is removed the 2009 Report should be a blockbuster.

I know Matt has at least looked at the Report, he made a comment on the immigration assumptions that showed he was familiar at least with Table V.A1, but in my experience he is one of the few, most everyone else content to 'know' what they 'know' second hand. Well it turns out that most of the people reporting on this are simply repeating knowledge they gained second hand, assuming that somebody actually did some original reporting, after all to believe otherwise would be to assume that thousands of economists and reporters were just ignorant or lying.

(If this reminds you of WMD reporting in the runup to Iraq, well that is not an accident, Privatizers and NeoCons and the Foundations that push them all overlap quite nicely.)

Social Security is the Stealth Bomber in the campaign for a renewed progressive public action program. The New Deal is on final approach for the bombing run and the Solvency fuse is armed. Yet by and large the political radar screens are blank, neither side senses it coming. See you after the explosion.

Posted by Bruce Webb | June 23, 2007 12:39 PM

m868k

Posted by ro72ck | June 27, 2007 2:02 PM

m524k

Posted by ro885ck | July 4, 2007 11:38 PM