Government Is the Solution
WASHINGTON — Why don’t Democrats just say it? They really believe in active government and think it does good and valuable things. One of those valuable things is that government creates jobs — yes, really — and also the conditions under which more jobs can be created.
You probably read that and thought: But don’t Democrats and liberals say this all the time? Actually, the answer is no. It’s Republicans and conservatives who usually say that Democrats and liberals believe in government. Progressive politicians often respond by apologizing for their view of government, or qualifying it, or shifting as fast as the speed of light from mumbled support for government to robust affirmations of their faith in the private sector.
This is beginning to change, but not fast enough. And the events of recent weeks suggest that if progressives do not speak out plainly on behalf of government, they will be disadvantaged throughout the election-year debate. Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in the Wisconsin recall election owed to many factors, including his overwhelming financial edge. But he was also helped by the continuing power of the conservative anti-government idea in our discourse. An energetic argument on one side will be defeated only by an energetic argument on the other.
The case for government’s role in our country’s growth and financial success goes back to the very beginning. One of the reasons I wrote my book “Our Divided Political Heart” was to show that, from Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay forward, farsighted American leaders understood that action by the federal government was essential to ensuring the country’s prosperity, developing our economy, promoting the arts and sciences, and building large projects: the roads and canals, and later, under Abraham Lincoln, the institutions of higher learning, that bound a growing nation together.
Both Clay and Lincoln battled those who used states’ rights slogans to crimp federal authority and who tried to use the Constitution to handcuff anyone who would use the federal government creatively. Both read the Constitution’s commerce clause as Franklin Roosevelt and progressives who followed him did, as permitting federal action to serve the common good. A belief in government’s constructive capacities is not some recent ultra-liberal invention.
Decades of anti-government rhetoric have made liberals wary of claiming their legacy as supporters of the state’s positive role. That’s why they have had so much trouble making the case for President Obama’s stimulus program passed by Congress in 2009. It ought to be perfectly obvious: When the private sector is no longer investing, the economy will spin downward unless the government takes on the task of investing. And such investments — in transportation and clean energy, refurbished schools and the education of the next generation — can prime future growth.
Yet the drumbeat of propaganda against government has made it impossible for the plain truth about the stimulus to break through. It was thus salutary that Douglas Elmendorf, the widely respected director of the Congressional Budget Office, told a congressional hearing last week that 80 percent of economic experts surveyed by the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business agreed that the stimulus got the unemployment rate lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been otherwise. Only 4 percent disagreed. The stimulus, CBO concluded, added as many as 3.3 million jobs during the second quarter of 2010, and it may have kept us from lapsing back into recession.
So when conservatives say, as they regularly do, that “government doesn’t create jobs,” the riposte should be quick and emphatic: “Yes it has, and yes, it does!”
Indeed, our unemployment rate is higher today than it should be because conservatives blocked additional federal spending to prevent layoffs by state and local governments — and because progressives, including Obama, took too long to propose more federal help. Obama’s jobs program would be a step in the right direction, and he’s right to tout it now. But he should have pushed for a bigger stimulus from the beginning. The anti-government disposition has so much power that Democrats and moderate Republicans allowed themselves to be intimidated into keeping it too small.
Let’s turn Ronald Reagan’s declaration on its head: Opposition to government isn’t the solution. Opposition to government was and remains the problem. It is past time that we affirm government’s ability to heal the economy, and its responsibility for doing so.
E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
Share This
That sort of blanket statement will not help Dems. Certain types of government intervention is the solution.
Government is good when used correctly, not minimally.
That might be a better mantra. You can beat Reps with that one because their argument that government is in general bad flies in the face of history…as does that government IS the solution.
I think we still have some leftover cold war anti-socialism tendencies in the American population.
It’s interesting how the same event can be used to justify opposite courses of action. The election in Wisconsin might signal to some that the public is siding with the conservative point of view, and therefore liberals should moderate. Or, you could say that liberals need to be more bold in their position. I suppose it’s similar to the debate in the GOP after 2008 (which would lend credibility to your argument, if we assume symmetry).
But, politics aside, I’m just not convinced on the policy. Federal government spending is higher, as a percentage of GDP, than any other time other than WWII. Shouldn’t we, therefore, have more problems solved? Is the liberal argument that spending should just continue to get higher and higher, as more and more problems need to be solved? That seems to be the historic pattern, but it’s unsustainable.
I agree with ShannonLee that the talking points that government is good or bad both miss the point. We need effective government. What that is is another matter for debate. I think that effective government tends to me smaller government, but I don’t support smaller (or bigger) government for its own sake*.
*Ok, that’s not entirely true. To the extent that bigger government correlates with more limited freedom, I would oppose it on those grounds even disregarding the effectiveness argument. But there is a point where effectiveness and freedom must be balanced.
I have to agree with the two previous comments posted. And I agree to some degree that government spending is benefitial to promote growth and jobs. If the government only spent money for
“ensuring the country’s prosperity, developing our economy, promoting the arts and sciences, and building large projects: the roads and canals, and later, under Abraham Lincoln, the institutions of higher learning, that bound a growing nation together”, then most conservatives might not have a problem with government spending.
So E.J. how about looking at outdated programs, useless programs, duplicate prgrams, money spent on non-essential special interest programs and wasted money due to the bloated size of government and you might find the reason so many are against any increase in government spending.
That is what is wrong with the liberal’s viewpoint. “All government spending is good”. And the conservative viewpoint of “all government spending is bad” is also wrong. How about doing some research and write an article on how liberals can help reduce wasteful spending and use those funds to generate jobs and protect teacher and safety workers positions!
Being pro-government is a tough sell. Trust me, I come out in support of federal government action as often as anyone here. Comments seldom get past the evil government can’t do anything right stage and people think that is a reasoned rebuttal.
And I don’t see many Democrats leaping out in support of government action either. The majority seem to have bought into the government is the problem theme. Whether it is a matter of sailing close to the prevailing winds or a sell out to get corporate and Wall Street cash doesn’t really matter. It is a fact. Look at the ACA. Where it fell short was not that it turns control of health care over to the government but that its cost control measures are undermined by the reliance on the most expensive delivery method available, by private, for profit insurance
The irony is that we are being threatened by the growth of government. But it is not by the growth of the federal government, it is by the growth of the middle management governments, the ones that come between the local and the federal levels. The state and county governments have doubled and tripled in size over the last thirty years since we supposedly entered into the era of small government. We are constantly told that we should run government like a business. Tell you what, go to one of your business theorists and tell him that you are increasing the size and responsibilities of the middle management in your company to increase efficiency and responsiveness. See what he says. Be prepared for laughter.
merkin,
Since you brought up state and local level spending, it’s worth noting that, when you include those, government spending is 40% of GDP. Considering that, I think you are right that it is a tough sell to argue that the government should be doing more. It maybe should be doing more in some areas, but less in at least as many. Unless you want to argue that 40% is just not enough.
As for the balance of spending, you could just as well try to tell your business theorist that you think a company should merge with 49 other companies to form a mega-company. Would that go over any better? Really, I don’t think either metaphor fits. A state government is not “middle-management”. It is a separate entity. To compare it to the business word, it would be like a partnership between Intel and Microsoft. Both have separate but overlapping interests, priorities, and roles.
merkin..Do you think there is an anti-government backlash on spending when we hear most everyday about the waste that occurs. Seems to me that the good programs are getting rolled up in the movement to cut spending since no one at the appropriate levels are identifing ways to cut spending without hurting jobs and economic growth.
Seems to me that this would be a good place for both parties to start working together to save some money, but working together in itself is bad, so even areas where things could happpen nothing happens.
RP- surveys indicate that conservatives grossly over estimate the amount of waste and duplication in the federal government, just as they grossly over estimate the size of the federal government payroll, especially the non-military one.
So you believe that conservatives think that all government spending is bad and liberals believe that all government spending is good. (I would challenge that view by asking you to produce the conservative who wants to eliminate all defense spending and and a liberal that supports all defense spending but I am willing to write it off to poetic license, this time.)(I assume that you mean federal government spending here. The roles seem reversed when it comes to state and local governments, wouldn’t you agree?)
But we are moderates here and none of us have such cartoonish, one dimensional views. So the question is, what percentage of the federal government’s budget do you believe is involved in “outdated programs, useless programs, duplicate prgrams,
money spent on non-essential special interest programsand wasted money due to the bloated size of government,” as you put it? I feel that I had to strike “non-essential special interest programs” since that could describe virtually every government program.As always, I will go first. I believe that about 10% of the budget is wasted on duplication and inefficiency and one you didn’t mention, corruption. This is not passing judgment on the effectiveness of the programs, that would vary depending on your viewpoint. I personally question the need to build a three billion dollar Virginia class fast attack submarine when it seems to me that a one billion dollar Los Angles class boat would be adequate to meet the threat of a few thousand terrorists hiding in caves, but that is just me and I have assumed all of the programs are necessary. Besides, the programs are put into place by elected representatives, Democracy. And both parties have, over the last twenty years been in power to weed out the programs that they feel aren’t effective. If they haven’t the only assumption is that they are incompetent or otherwise unable to cull the useless programs. If that is the case why would you vote for them?
RP-
Yes, of course, if there is a great amount of waste that you say that there is that the Republicans have been unable to stop while being in power the majority of the time over the last thirty years or so that they have been complaining about waste but that they seem to be unable to stop it. Yes, I think that we could find a way around their thirty year inability to perform, their absolute incompetence in the matter. Such journeys start with them admitting that there is a problem.
merkin, to respond to one comment before moving to another. I do not believe all liberals think government spending is good while all conservative believe all spending is bad. But one can listen to the news or read article such as this and when one says “Government is the Solution” it immediately sets in motion reactions that make many believe those two points.
As for the solution, it will never occur until we get a government more like we had until the mid nineties when people on both sides of the isle would set down and discuss ways to fix problems. However, the Republicans were hell bent to bring down Clinton setting off a fued like the Hatfields and McCoys where the Democrats tried their best to bring down Bush and now the Republicans are doing the same with Obama.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is the fact we have two opposing laws coming due that will have a huge negative effect on the economy if there is nothing done. Taxes go up for everyone and massive reducetions to spending occur. Maybe to avoid both from happening both parties will have to negotiate positions of compromise so a little of both occurs.
If either party wanted to direct spending to infrastructure which would create jobs in the short term and in the long run through the towns and businesses that would benefit from updated roads and public buildings and permanent jobs, it would solve a lot of problems. And is one of the things only governments can do and do well.
One side wants to spend little on current programs, lots on defense boondoggles, and won’t spend on ifrastructure if they can’t get political points for it.
The other side wants to spend little on defense programs and lots on supplementing income of those working below their potential because of lack of infrastructure repair which cuts into any amount that could be spent even if they could get the cooperation to spend it.
AD: “The election in Wisconsin might signal to some that the public is siding with the conservative point of view, and therefore liberals should moderate.”
Yet there were voters in Wisconsin who voted against the recall. Not because they liked the Republican positions and Scott Walker, but because they were against the recall in principle.
If conservatives feel that the Wisconsin recall election affirms their position among the general population, they will have a rude awakening in the next election in which the GOP positions are being voted on.
Still, I acknowledge that the majority of people who voted for Walker did so because of his positions. I just don’t think the results of the recall election can be as “pro-Republican” as most people believe.
As far as waste in the government… I agree that conservatives over-estimate the amount of waste in the government. They’re for government unless someone else (Dem) is in charge. Then suddenly government is bad and wasteful. When Perry was running for prez he was against federal government, but then again he wanted to be the head of it. He’s against federal government when he doesn’t get his way or if it does not serve his agenda.
On the local level we’ve gotten to the point of having to eliminate teachers, firefighters and police to reduce the budget. Is government really too big and wasteful if we have to eliminate these necessary jobs? I would hope that we would eliminate wasteful spending first.
It would be wonderful if we could seat down together and compromise away our differences. But there has to be two parties to a compromise and for the last four years there has been only one. The Republicans are the ones who continue to move the goal posts, who refuse to compromise. It is the Republicans who moved so far to the right that they refuse to accept positions and policies that they actually formulated as solutions a few short years ago. The Obama administration is the most moderate administration we have had since the Ford administration.
The Republicans have done everything that they can to sabotage Obama including doing everything in their power to extend the recession to try to prevent Obama’s re-election. This is the reason that we have two laws that are expiring that will cause massive damage to the economy, because the Republicans used the debt limit to try to impose austerity on the US knowing that it would damage the recovery. They are using the debt, most of which was run up on their watch, to try to prevent an Obama reelection.
It is even more breathtaking than that. Thirty years of Republican deregulation and the Bush administration’s absolute total failures to regulate, to enforced the laws on the books caused the largest financial crisis and recession since the depression, that cost millions of people their jobs, millions of people their homes and which cost the nation 7 trillion dollars in real wealth and drove the government more than 4 trillion dollars further into debt. And the reason that the Republicans want to get the White House back is so that they can do it all over again by reapplying the same policies that caused the Great Recession guaranteeing another recession in 5, 7 or 10 years.
These policies that the Republicans refuse to compromise on are more important to them than the impact that they have on the economy. For them the means justifies the ends.
But you were going to prove me wrong about your pet peeve, government waste. You were going to prove that the Republicans are actually serious about this issue, that it is not just something that they talk about every four years at election time. And I assume that you were going to explain why they have been talking about government waste for more than thirty years but don’t seem to every get around to doing something about it when they are in power. And I assume that you were going to tell me why if this is such an important issue for you why do you not complain about the Republicans who seem to be taking advantage of you, asking for your vote and then not doing anything about government waste.
Merkin, you would be more persuasive if you avoided hyperbolic (and easily disproved) claims like those in your second and third paragraphs.
Merkin I thought you might be a moderate Democrat, but then you make the comment you made about the republicans lack of regulation causing the meltdown in 2008 and that popped that thought. One only needs to look at the repeal of Glass-Seagall that President Clinton made such a huge deal at his press conference to sign tat legislation to see there are two stories to every issue. There is a good possibility had that law never been repealed, 2008 would never have happened.
Yes, and look at Sarbanes-Oxley that Bush passed, the most sweeping business regulation in decades.
Our nations infrastructure and standard of living for the bulk of the citizenry would be considerably diminished if not for all the work done by the federal govt over the past several decades. Of course none of that matters to people with selective memories, short memories, or no memories.