It seems true that Republicans seek to grow some areas of government and shrink others, while Democrats likewise seek to grow some areas and shrink others (I’m not sold that liberal and conservative labels fit). These areas are often very different. I would say the big difference is that one party would rather borrow more than the other.
When I think about any game like chess, football, boxing, or whatever, I realize few of us like referees. Nobody comes to the stadium to watch them. However, they’re the only way to enforce the rules, whether we like all the rules or not. I often hear about the rules and enforcement of rules people don’t like in whatever sport my coworkers are talking about at the time.
When I was a kid and neighborhood kids got together in the street to play street hockey, or football and baseball in the lot next to my house (sandlot), we played without referees. It seems harder to play without referees when there’s a lot of money or prestige on the line. So, yeah. Without rules we don’t have a game. We need referees to enforce the rules. Still, no one wants referees to be the main attraction.
You raise an interesting issue. Government as referee. We've all heard this idea a lot. Clearly, there is something to be said for this. It can be seen as another way to look at the role of government, and in a sense its size. Biden is asking for more funds to strengthen the IRS. Stronger refereeing. Is it like putting an additional official on the field? Or is it like calling more fouls, enforcing the rules more aggressively? They are different, but both represent a larger role for government. Modern political science tends to focus on the rules of the game rather than the refereeing. The idea is that "he who makes the rules, wins the game." Constitutions, for example, can set up systems that favor one among other political forces and economic interests. There is also an issue that I haven't touched. I'll write about it soon. Much of government action is symbolic. Laws are often ways to reassure and comfort (by their rhetoric) and have little impact on life in a society. We might say that strong governments are less likely to pass symbolic laws and more likely to pass actionable rules. Still, the question for our time seems to come down to a general reaction to government: friend or foe. Some say that the success of Biden in dealing with the pandemic has shifted the marker a bit--toward more respect for and willingness to tolerate government action. I wonder.
It seems true that Republicans seek to grow some areas of government and shrink others, while Democrats likewise seek to grow some areas and shrink others (I’m not sold that liberal and conservative labels fit). These areas are often very different. I would say the big difference is that one party would rather borrow more than the other.
When I think about any game like chess, football, boxing, or whatever, I realize few of us like referees. Nobody comes to the stadium to watch them. However, they’re the only way to enforce the rules, whether we like all the rules or not. I often hear about the rules and enforcement of rules people don’t like in whatever sport my coworkers are talking about at the time.
When I was a kid and neighborhood kids got together in the street to play street hockey, or football and baseball in the lot next to my house (sandlot), we played without referees. It seems harder to play without referees when there’s a lot of money or prestige on the line. So, yeah. Without rules we don’t have a game. We need referees to enforce the rules. Still, no one wants referees to be the main attraction.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S
You raise an interesting issue. Government as referee. We've all heard this idea a lot. Clearly, there is something to be said for this. It can be seen as another way to look at the role of government, and in a sense its size. Biden is asking for more funds to strengthen the IRS. Stronger refereeing. Is it like putting an additional official on the field? Or is it like calling more fouls, enforcing the rules more aggressively? They are different, but both represent a larger role for government. Modern political science tends to focus on the rules of the game rather than the refereeing. The idea is that "he who makes the rules, wins the game." Constitutions, for example, can set up systems that favor one among other political forces and economic interests. There is also an issue that I haven't touched. I'll write about it soon. Much of government action is symbolic. Laws are often ways to reassure and comfort (by their rhetoric) and have little impact on life in a society. We might say that strong governments are less likely to pass symbolic laws and more likely to pass actionable rules. Still, the question for our time seems to come down to a general reaction to government: friend or foe. Some say that the success of Biden in dealing with the pandemic has shifted the marker a bit--toward more respect for and willingness to tolerate government action. I wonder.