The cover of U.S. News and World Report this week declares in bold letters: “BIG GOVERNMENT. It’s back—no matter who wins.” Inside, James Pethokoukis writes that “whether you pull the lever (or fill in the oval touch screen) for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or even John McCain in November, you’re probably going to end up in 2009 with a push for Big Government of the sort not seen in a generation. More taxes. More regulation. More spending.”
But rather than proving that a jump in the size of government is imminent, the article itself shows that media outlets are still ready to buy into the tired, conservative framing of government from decades past.
The Big Government label was never about the cost, size, or reach of government. If it were, then “Limited Government Conservatives” should have been howling from the start about the whopping price tag of the Iraq war, the growing number of border agents, warrantless surveillance, and federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. To be sure, some libertarian conservatives did oppose those developments, but few would argue that they qualify as big government.
No, Limited Government and Big Government are not about cost, size, or reach, but, rather, about what government should do and who should pay for it. And, along with “tax and spend,” they are among the conservative movement’s most successful narratives about their vision for America and those who disagree.
But what’s our narrative? How should we be talking about a positive role for government that respects human rights, keeps us safe, and protects opportunity for all? Research by the Frameworks Institute, Demos, and Public Knowledge, as well as The Opportunity Agenda’s research and experience in the field, provide some promising principles.
Government represents a shared investment in systems that serve the common good. Those systems include the system of levees that should have protected the people of New Orleans against Hurricane Katrina, but for our failure to invest in them. They include the system of childhood immunization that has wiped out dangerous childhood diseases. Our system of civil rights laws, that has expanded opportunity to include more and more Americans. Even our interstate highway system, that connects us as a single, prosperous nation. None of these national strides forward could have been accomplished through individual efforts alone—we could only accomplish them together, through investment in government.
Taxes, by the same token, represent a similar shared investment, an investment in the future as well as the present. Shortchanging that investment now is irresponsible, because it weakens our society for us today, and for our kids and grandkids in future generations.
But where’s the snappy progressive analog to “Big Government” and “Limited Government”? What future president do we expect to declare “the era of disinvestment-in-our-shared-responsibility-to-serve-the-common-good is dead”?
We and our partners have been experimenting with some possibilities, including:
• “Responsible Government” vs. “Irresponsible Government” and
• “Community Values” vs. the “On Your Own” mentality.
Here’s a link to Barack Obama trying out the Community Values/On Your Own formulation at the Heartland Presidential Forum: Community Values in Action organized by the Center for Community Change last December in Des Moines.
The “Responsible Government” phrase can also encompass a government that abides by the Constitution, respects human rights, and is a good global neighbor.
We’d like to know what you think about these narratives, and if you’re using your own phrases that work. Post a comment!
Printer-friendly version
