Republican and Democrat #2

Big vs Small Government

Sorry, I intended this for the last post and instead you were offered a blank page.  John Cage, I am not.  Nor the Russian painter whose solid black square was an inspiration to many (Kazimir Malevich, Black Square, 1915, oil on linen, while I have been urged on many occasions to speak less and my friends think these blogs should be shorter. 

A second way in which some people choose a political party involves their attitude about the “size” of government and their perception that one party supports “small” and the other “big” government.  I put these descriptions in quotation marks because I hope we can agree that these are vague and ambiguous distinctions. 

There is, though, reason for making a partisan choice based on the proper extent of government authority in a society.  And, clearly, if you asked people, many would easily identify the two major American parties on this basis.  People claim they are Republicans because they believe the government has grown too large and there are others who are Democrats say they believe the government should play a greater role in society. 

We might prefer that the discussion were framed differently.  The question might be over the proper role of government, and that would involve a discussion of specific circumstances, i.e. pandemic, war, depression, as well as judgements about the general, and potential, competence of government processes and employees.  (The dreaded “bureaucrat.”)

Moreover, given that governments can accomplish similar ends in different ways, the question is even  more complex.  Consider the military.  Government could raise the money, make the weapons and fight the war.  Or governments could raise the money (taxes or expansion of the money supply), pay private industry to make the weapons and hire mercenaries to fight the wars.  And other combinations. 

Governments also participate in market economies to differing extents.  On behalf of “the people,” a government may purchase and deploy goods and services, largely those that a private seller cannot exclude non-purchasers from their enjoyment. (Such goods and services—called “public goods” by economists—are valuable to large numbers of people but cannot be sold in private markets for a profit.)   In theory the people vote for legislators that act as their purchase agents, ensuring that all pay a fair share for products and services that all or most of the people judge worth having.

And then, there is the government as regulator. managing social and economic life, providing security, ensuring an appropriate money supply, etc.  In all these areas there are choices as to how strong a hand the government should take.  In each instance citizens may differ, desiring a strong government role in one instance and not in another, and may view the government as either the solver or the source of their problems.

In addition, there is the question of government-private partnerships, or services to non-government entities, that may provide excessive favors (pork or other “gifts”) to privileged interests.

And finally, there is the age-old question of who will guard the guardians.  When power is given to a few, in this case the police power of the state, how can the givers be certain that such power will not be abused and how will they be able to take this power back?  Conservatives find this a particularly difficult dilemma, as they see a strong government as necessary to maintain public order, or defense in a dangerous world, while believing that no government of mortal men and women can be entrusted with authority beyond a certain point. 

I discuss this at some length because the issue is so many sided.  When people raise concerns about the size of government, they may be referring to any of the above areas of action.  And I have not even begun to consider the role of government in the global society, or in devising various “safety nets” or addressing concerns for equity in both opportunity and outcomes.

Suffice it to say, that in all these circumstances and more, the members of one political party may have more confidence in the performance of non-government entities and a less supervised market, and the other more confidence in the ability of government to contribute to the social good.