Democrats don't campaign in support of "big government." That's something that they are characterized as being for by the people that oppose them.
That's like a Democrat saying that Republicans like "letting the poor die" except when it comes to veterans, children, and those wounded by terrorist attacks. What hypocrites!
Increasing the social safety net, increasing regulations on commerce and business, leveraging the public largesse for greater equality aren't using the same words as "big government", but aren't doable without one.
I agree with your point in that it was an invective, pithy statement, but the big government categorization wasn't unfounded.
The point is that Democrats do not say, in the first person, from their mouths, that they are for "big government." In addition, the term lacks lacks usefulness without a basis for comparison for the word "big", except as a code for the individual policies that you have named to be used by the enemies of those policies. For example, if you're for a big military, are you for big government?
It's an advertising term, not itself a communication of fact.
As I argued elsewhere, all the 'party line' sentiments are advertising, and ultimately, the measure of either party's effectiveness is probably a measure against how effectively they act in accordance with those slogans.
For what it's worth, it wasn't meant as a slight to democrats, just a slightly less aggrandizing presentation of the point made.
Arguably, Republicans that claim to prefer a smaller government often would take the surplus from the cut of safety-net programs and apply them to the military. In practice, that may be fair, but it doesn't necessarily result in a smaller government either.
If I were critiquing both parties on effectiveness, I would easily fault the Republican party for failing to substantially reduce the size of government, while at the same time, I would critique democrats for settling for a reduced quantity of freedom in the interest of allowing everyone to share equally in the freedoms that remain.
That said, I prefer neither party, so feel free to critique however you see fit.
I'm not a Democrat, and didn't vote for Obama, I just think that straw men are a waste of time. Convicting Democrats for not being for "big government" across the board when none of them claim to be for "big government" at all is a waste of time.
The phrase is being used in lieu of the specific and extensive arguments that would have to be made connecting business regulation, social safety nets and progressive taxation with marriage being defined as heterosexual, abortion restrictions, and war(?).
Democrats may support some policies that lead to big government, however they don't support big government as inherently good, but merely as a unavoidable side effect to other important policies. Republicans, on the other hand, frequently argue that small government is worthwhile for it's own sake.
I think if we look at both motives without attempting to ascribe negative connotation, we might get somewhere.
"Small government" isn't purposeless, it's (supposed) tenet is to limit the government in both scope and authority to those powers enumerated by the Constitution. Either way, the point isn't just that the government should be non-existent, or smaller for its own sake, but that it should allow the citizens to provide for their own welfare and provide the minimal in opposition to that. The Republican mantra believes that people can and will fend for themselves, and either enjoy their own successes or failures with minimal intervention.
The democratic mantra is to provide a minimum standard for all, at the expense of those in excess of that standard.
It's a contrast in ideology, but neither is good or bad on its own. Also worth noting is that over time, the parties have effectively flipped positions on matters entirely. The Republicans, for example, freed the slaves despite FIERCE opposition by the democrats. Nowadays, the Democrats generally carry the African-American vote.
In short, it's a popularity contest. Both parties have ideals that they live up to some percentage of the time, but any individual politician (or party dynamic) is likely to shift their belief in the interests of getting elected, staying elected, appeasing campaign contributors or even to appease their constituency.
>Increasing the social safety net, increasing regulations on commerce and business, leveraging the public largesse for greater equality aren't using the same words as "big government", but aren't doable without one.
>I agree with your point in that it was an invective, pithy statement, but the big government categorization wasn't unfounded.
It may take a lot of money to have a social safety net, but we spend a crazy amount on the military, too.
When Republicans say they don't want "big government", it really is entirely a code phrase for the social safety net. Ask any Republican whether trimming $300 billion from the Pentagon's budget would be a good idea, and (except for a few Libertarians) you'll get a resounding no way, with vague references to national security. Despite the fact that the US spends more on the military than all other countries combined.
So no, the "big government" accusation is entirely unfounded. It's all about what they want to spend billions of dollars on, not whether they want to spend it.
Actually you're succumbing to a silly strawman. A huge chunk of government "bigness" doesn't come from those programs, it comes from a penny-wise and pound-foolish stance most americans seem to take of: we must spend 300-800% of any given cost on accounting, oversight, tripple checking etc. That isn't a typo - it costs so much to do things because most of the money goes to oversight crap. We could simplify all the red tape, let a full 25% of costs go to grift, and still come out ahead by a lot.
Note: this assumes that there isn't just fancy grift in the whole set of red tape procedures.
