Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Who's worse depends on your goal. To run with this guy's argument (it is a really well done piece, btw), you have to buy the assumption that the efficient operation of an enlarging more involved govt is preferable and better for the country than a hobbled, contracting govt.
That's not settled fact. To cripple the govt's power in many arenas would be a good thing. In others, a terrible thing. And that's where I think this essay misfires a bit. The real battle isn't Big v. Small govt. It's for allocation of resources of a Big Govt. The GOP votes for expansion of all sorts (wars, Medicare Part D, Bush's cheerleading increased govt involvement in housing, etc.). Its expansion simply differs from the Dems'.
You have more a competition for cash and power among two parties than you do a battle between Randian starve-the-beast sorts and Democratic expansionists. Neither of these parties really plans to shrink anything in terms of govt. They just want to be in charge of everything. In part because that's what drives politicians. In other part because I think the parties realize we're heading into a period of worsening global turmoil. Crises make kings. The GOP thinks its their turn to play FDR in this global catastrophe. The Democrats think that's naturally their part.
|
I took the guy's point to be that WRT the Senate the end has never justified the means. The Senate was all about the means. It's one reason why they run less frequently than the President himself.
This bitter aide feels the Rs have thrown that basic rule out.
