Most of the coverage of President Obama’s interview on “60 Minutes” focused on his body language (glum, weary) or his message about legislative compromise (open to some, within reason). The part that got my attention was his discussion of government and whether, under his administration, it had gotten too big. While defending the component parts of his agenda, Obama acknowledged that opponents “were able to paint my governing philosophy as a classic, traditional, big government liberal. And that's not something that the American people want."
No, it’s not. And, as my colleague Jonathan Chait has pointed out many times, it’s not exactly what liberals want, either. For conservatives, smaller government is an end in itself. For liberals, bigger government is more a means to other ends, like policing the banks or making health care available to everybody. If a market works fine on its own, liberals are happy not to meddle with it.
But sometimes addressing our society's needs really does require increasing the role and size of government. There is just no getting around that. You can ask private employers to pay everybody a decent wage, but it won't happen unless the government establishes and enforces a minimum. You can reduce carbon in the atmosphere by asking corporations to buy and sell the right to pollute, but first government has to create the permits and the rules for trading them. And so on.
What worries me about Obama’s "60 Minutes" interview, which was consistent with his recent rhetoric, is that it ceded too much ground to the conservative critique of government. Obama stated that his unpopular initiatives were necessary. But he also made clear he, too, wanted to make government leaner. He didn't say the "era of big government is over," as Bill Clinton once famously did. But he also didn't say that sometimes government serves a vital role, as champion and protector of the everyday American.
To give you a better sense of what I mean, here's a fuller excerpt from Obama's interview, which was with Steve Kroft of CBS News:
And what could Obama have said instead? Maybe something like this:
Now, I’m not a political strategist, as perhaps that imaginary little soliloquy reveals. And I take seriously the argument, from my friends who are political strategists, that defending government so explicitly, at this particular moment, would invite strong political repercussions. Too many voters would hear that rhetoric and take it as confirmation that Democrats aren't listening to them. They'd simply tune out, making it impossible to reach them. The only way to build confidence in government, this argument goes, is to enact programs that actually work and let the public come around on its own.
Maybe the strategists are right. And maybe Obama is right to listen to them, if that's indeed what he's doing. I honestly don't know. But I don't operate within the same political constraints as elected officials, so I can say what I really think: A bigger government is just fine. In fact, at times like these, it's a good idea.
Jon, you're right and your friends who are political strategists in the quintessential Democratic manner have their heads up their asses. For a full generation now, ever since 1980, Democrats have been running (scared) on a third way, GOP-lite, I-don-like-the-guv'mint-any-more-than-the-next-guy platform, and guess what, IT DOES NOT WORK. It forces candidates to cede the high ground, and it forces them to dissemble. They come off as shifty, dishonest and lacking the courage of their convictions. Also they forfeit any opportunity to actually educate the public about the real good that government can do and maybe CHANGE public opinion rather than just pander to public opinion as it already exis ... view full comment
Jon, you're right and your friends who are political strategists in the quintessential Democratic manner have their heads up their asses. For a full generation now, ever since 1980, Democrats have been running (scared) on a third way, GOP-lite, I-don-like-the-guv'mint-any-more-than-the-next-guy platform, and guess what, IT DOES NOT WORK. It forces candidates to cede the high ground, and it forces them to dissemble. They come off as shifty, dishonest and lacking the courage of their convictions. Also they forfeit any opportunity to actually educate the public about the real good that government can do and maybe CHANGE public opinion rather than just pander to public opinion as it already exists. I mean, why go for GOP-Lite when at the same low price you can purchase the genuine article?
Maybe you need to talk to people who have to deal with the government from the other side of the table (or bullet-proof window, as the case may be). Even the best-intentioned laws get implemented and enforced by fallible people. Alternatively, the laws themselves often overreach, forcing civil servants to go where they really have no desire to go. Dealing with the government means subjecting yourself to an institution that has large areas of discretionary decision-making power that can ruin your day, your business, or your life. Often, you find yourself dealing with multiple levels of bureaucracy on federal and state level (e.g. with environmental laws and regulations). The complexity of m ... view full comment
Maybe you need to talk to people who have to deal with the government from the other side of the table (or bullet-proof window, as the case may be). Even the best-intentioned laws get implemented and enforced by fallible people. Alternatively, the laws themselves often overreach, forcing civil servants to go where they really have no desire to go. Dealing with the government means subjecting yourself to an institution that has large areas of discretionary decision-making power that can ruin your day, your business, or your life. Often, you find yourself dealing with multiple levels of bureaucracy on federal and state level (e.g. with environmental laws and regulations). The complexity of many regulations has reached a point where even the civil servants enforcing them, and many lawyers, cannot interpret them clearly. For small businesses and individuals, the courts are not a viable option for seeking relief.
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
City
State
Zip
