Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Arianna Huffington, formerly a Republican, credits her shift in political views to colleagues Al Franken and Robert Scheer. Before her change in ...
Read more about By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services.
Does McCain Still Agree With Reagan That Government Is The Problem?
By Arianna Huffington, Tribune Media Services
Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, famously declared that
"government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
problem."
Twenty-seven years later, in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and seven-plus years into the reign of Bush and Cheney, Reagan's anti-government battle cry should be on trial. But, stunningly, it is not.
This needs to change. The presidential candidates' view of the role of government should be one of the central questions of the last 36 days of the campaign. And it should definitely be a question they are asked at their next debate:
"Sen. McCain, given the part deregulation played in the current economic crisis and your support of a massive government bailout of the financial industry, are you now ready to break with Ronald Reagan's assessment?"
And, to be even-handed: "Sen. Obama, in 1996, Bill Clinton cheerfully announced that 'the era of big government is over.' As the Dow plummets and Wall Street and Main Street turn to Washington for big government bailouts, are you now ready to break with President Clinton's assessment?"
The shift in my own thinking on the role of government was what led to my disillusionment with the Republican Party, and the transformation in my political views. I've always been progressive on social issues: pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights -- even when I was a Republican. The big difference is that I once believed the private sector would address America's social problems. But the hope that people would roll up their sleeves and solve this country's social ills without the help of government was never fully realized. There were never enough volunteers or donations -- and the problems were just too massive and intractable to tackle without the raw power of appropriations that only government can provide.
Our economy is not the only thing that is crumbling. So is the philosophical foundation of the modern Republican Party -- also known as the Leave Us Alone Coalition, led by its spiritual guru, Grover Norquist. His dream of making government so small "we can drown it in a bathtub" has been embraced by the GOP mainstream.
Indeed, during his 2003 inauguration, Jeb Bush stood in front of Florida's capitol building and said: "There would be no greater tribute to our maturity as a society than if we can make these buildings around us empty of workers; silent monuments to the time when government played a larger role than it deserved or could adequately fill."
I sadly suspect that Jeb and Grover and their Republican compatriots have not yet updated their views of government -- they have not yet made the connection between demonizing government and looking to it to save the day.
The financial meltdown has put the Grand Old Party's schizophrenia on full display. But why are so many in the media, the Democratic Party, and the Obama campaign averting their eyes from the spectacle of a party that wants to drown government until they need it to bail out Wall Street or AIG -- that wants to vanquish government workers, unless they are listening in on our phone conversations or working hard rolling back government regulations?
It's like the story, probably apocryphal, of the agitated -- and obviously confused -- senior citizen imploring a GOP politician not to "let the government get its hands on Medicare."
With the madness of this contradictory mindset exposed, voters will have a chance to decide if they agree with Norquist and Jeb and W and Cheney and the Republican Messiah himself, Ronald Reagan, and, yes, with John McCain. And even Cindy McCain who, in her otherwise bland convention speech, called for "the federal government" to "get itself under control and out of our way."
A staggering 83 percent of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. And, I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, I don't think it's because of too many earmarks or because $3 million was spent in 2003 to study bear DNA in Montana.
Size matters in some things, but when it comes to government, it's not the size of the government, it's the way it is utilized.
"Big government" didn't get us into Iraq. It didn't spy on Americans or open black-op rendition facilities all over the world. "Big government" didn't create Guantanamo or OK the use of torture. "Big government" didn't leave the residents of New Orleans to suffer in the wake of Katrina. "Big government" didn't cause the financial industry to run off the rails. Indeed, the free market is what created all the new, risky ways for banks to game the system and, eventually, implode -- then come calling on "big government" to ride to the rescue.
So let's hear what McCain and Obama think the fundamental role of government should be. I can think of no better way to underline the massive gulf between the two candidates -- and the two parties they represent -- at the very moment when McCain is so desperately trying to blur the differences (see his recent shopping spree at the second-hand populism store: "Big discounts on 'fat cats' and 'Wall Street greed'!")
Stanford professor Lawrence Lessig says that if Americans recognize that the financial crisis -- and the need for a government bailout -- is due to "policies McCain still promotes . . . this could well be the event that effected a generational shift in governmental attitudes. Think Hoover vs. (the eventual) FDR."
But if we want to make sure that Americans make that connection, we need to put the question of the role of government front and center in the campaign. Economic policy and foreign policy and domestic policy are all important areas of debate. But before we continue looking at the (falling) trees, let's take a step back and consider the forest.
========
Arianna Huffington's e-mail address is arianna@huffingtonpost.com.
(c) 2008 Arianna Huffington. Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
This news arrived on: 10/02/2008
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
11-21-2008 00:04
JCE wrote:
The democrats were taking the fish away, the republicans took all the fish away, and the fishing poles, the hooks and the firewood. They did leave us matches. But we are mad at the democrats for what they did to the fish. So what good is being a good fisherman or a good fire starter or a good cook if you got nothing to work with? Oh, maybe the politicians will throw us a bone.
11-21-2008 00:01
JCE wrote:
What I would like to know is why anyone let our crooked politicians take bribes to make the manufacturing plants, with its jobs, overseas, so we could buy stuff and the profit go overseas, give all these American companies tax breaks for this, make it rough on those companies that stayed, and then we trust these guys, overpay them, let them stick it to us more. We are capitalists, so they say, so we let more and more countries buy us up, out perform us, so we can't sell cars like we used to, then we reward them. Then we get mad as they don't get reelected. Thats worse than communism, socialism and fascism combined. At least some of those governments are gaining what we are losing.
10-10-2008 14:40
Sonya wrote:
Or...
After taking one day off the rich man came back, the other nine learned something valuable. They worked harder and contributed more.
Give a man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish and you feed him for life. Sometimes it is harder to teach the man to fish. But one should not give up.
Give a man a fish feed him for a day teach him to fish and you feed him for life. Sometimes it is harder to teach the man to fish. But one should not give up.
10-04-2008 12:48
Arianna Huffington wrote:
Does McCain Still Agree...
Ms. Huffington seems to conveniently forget that even Bill Clinton tried to rein in the loose lending practices of Fannie Mae early in his first term. However, he was confronted by Barney Frank, then head of the House Banking Committee, and his 'lover' Herb Moses, then director of Fannie's product initiatives, insisting that there was nothing wrong with the way loans were being approved. She also forgets the Community Reinvestment Act of 1997 and Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002 that forced lending institutions to relax the standards of lending to minorities and indigent borrowers under penality if law suits for discrimination.
Indeed, "Government is NOT the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
coeho148
Mesa, AZ
Indeed, "Government is NOT the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
coeho148
Mesa, AZ
10-03-2008 00:54
wrote:
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The
fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The
eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest)
would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and
seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a
curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The
group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four
men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other
six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man
and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 inste ad of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better
off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes
to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go
something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The
fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The
eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest)
would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and
seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a
curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The
group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four
men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other
six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man
and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar
owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the
same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 inste ad of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better
off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Arianna Huffington ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
Body Mass
