Question 19 on this recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 53% of the public prefer "smaller government with fewer services" to "larger government with more services" (supported by 43%).

I have a funny feeling that the services that most of the majority want eliminated are those that someone else is receiving.


C.f.

That Obama won the Presidency when a majority prefer smaller government pretty well proves your point about ignorant voters.

People usually say they want smaller government. But, ask about specific programs, and there is frequently suppport for the program.


That depends on the program. The polls on the bailouts show that there are some major programs that they oppose. But even if they do support many specific programs, the fact that they are generally suspicious of government still provides leverage for free market advocates.

Somin,

Why does the generic question of the "size" of government matter to you?

If the military buys only 100 fighter jets instead of 150 fighter jets, I suppose the "size" of government is less. But, shouldn't the government sometimes buy 150 fighter jets instead of 100 fighter jets, if 100 fighter jets is inadequate to do the job of national defense well?

The whole question of the "size" of government is entirely misplaced intellectually. If you think the government is performing a legitimate function, you probably want the size of government to be that which is necessary to do that function properly. You would not always favor smaller government over larger, or larger government over smaller. At least not if you are a sensible person. Instead, you would want the size of government to be determined by the mission that is expected to be accomplished.

I think what really concerns you is not the size of government, but the role of government. Right? If the government were to cut back funding for a role you considered legitimate by a large amount and then took, say seventy-five percent of that amount of money to fund a role you think it unwise for the government to play (perhaps displacing the market in a role where you think the market is doing well), that would lead to smaller government. Would that be an improvement over the status quo? From a libertarian perspective, wouldn't we actually be worse off if funding were shifted from a legitimate government function to a role that libertarians consider illegitimate when the total dollar of outlays decreased and the size of government was smaller?

I think you are letting your hopes about politics interfere with your intellectual judgment. Whatever the public says about abstract questions concerning the size of government is rather irrelevant. Questions concerning the role of government are what matter. The fact is that people support economic stimulus. Abstract questions about the size of government simply cannot compete with concerns about economic security. And, at the end of the day, that abstract question is not what is going to motivate the vast majority of voters.

This is as it should be. We should not always prefer smaller government. (Should we always prefer a smaller fire department? Maybe that sounds nice, until there is a huge fire and not enough resources able to be mobilized to deal with the situation. Should we always prefer a smaller police force? Not if you consider crime to be a problem that government has a role in controlling.) To say that we should advocate for smaller government as if it is always better regardless of the role being played is really intellectually dishonest. It is really simplistic propaganda that is designed to appeal a public that you look down upon. (Certain libertarians talking about how people are "rationally ignorant" reinforces that idea.) Apparently, the public is not thought capable of dealing with a higher level of discourse.

Why don't libertarians and conservatives talk to the public more about the role of government which is mostly the real concern. I recognize that lower taxes are seen as desirable (and liberals also see taxes as a cost, not a benefit unto themselves), but would mainstream conservatives really like to say, not provide enough funding to the military during a time of conflict as a way to reduce taxes? I think the answer would be no, not if they think that a certain level of funding is necessary to do the job effectively. Rather than spewing out simplistic propaganda points about how smaller is ALWAYS better, it is too bad that we don't spend more time talking about the role of government.

I think there is a fear that this conversation would probably be much more difficult for conservatives. The truth is, people like the government playing certain roles, like providing economic stimulus, that go beyond the duties of a minimal watchman state. This fear that conservative ideas will not be bought unless simplistically packaged for easy digestion is why conservatives resort to simplistic slogans about the size of government. Such slogans are easy to understand and viscerally appealing. But, my bet is that the public would in fact follow a more serious debate, if that is what was offered. I also think that conservative ideology, to the extent it can actually hold its own with the public, would be on firmer footing if not distorted by simplistic slogans.

As it is, I think whatever hope that Somin is deriving from surveys that show an abstract skepticism about the size of government is mostly misplaced. Not very many people are going to vote Republican when they would have voted Democrat because an economic stimulus bill is 850 billion dollars instead of 425 billion dollars. (Although they just might vote Republican if the economic stimulus package is not actually big enough to change the economic situation and Democrats are in power long enough to take the blame for a bad economy. In other words, the biggest risk to Democrats is if the economic stimulus bill is too small, not if it is too big. Your public opinion surveys on the size of government are irrelevant to what will truly motivate voters. At the end of the day, the health of the economy matters to voters a whole hell of a lot more than abstract questions concerning the size of government.) While it seems that our debates are often framed in terms of the "size" of government that is not what really concerns mainstream conservatives, who would not in fact purposely vote for government expenditures that they viewed as inadequate to accomplish a legitimate function, like funding the military for example, or mainstream liberals, who do not want bigger government for its own sake.

On the whole, I would blame conservative propaganda that has done damage to the public discourse through its insistence on keeping things as simple as possible for a public that is viewed as either stupid or perhaps more charitably "rationally ignorant."

But even if they do support many specific programs, the fact that they are generally suspicious of government still provides leverage for free market advocates.

This talk of "leverage" is the talk of a politician. Again, this definitely reinforces my earlier point about how all this talk of small government is nothing more than propaganda. You hope (and I think your hope echos the hope of Republican politicians who actually distort the terms of debate with their propaganda) that such talk, why intellectually empty, will create enough suspicion to provide your side with leverage.

By the way, no mainstream politician is against free markets. So, all this talk about how you are a "free market advocate" supposedly in contrast to those you disagree with is rather empty. The Cold War is over. Get over it.

By the way, no mainstream politician is against free markets. So, all this talk about how you are a "free market advocate" supposedly in contrast to those you disagree with is rather empty. The Cold War is over. Get over it.

It may be that no mainstream politician is against free markets to the extent of supporting socialism. But there are certainly many mainstream politicians (the vast majority, in fact) who support extensive government intervention in the economy which is of course antithetical to free markets.

If you generally believe (as I do) that government 1) performs worse than the private sector, and 2) performs worse the bigger it is, then there is every reason to care about the size of government. It's true I would not "always" favor smaller government over larger. But I certainly would in our current situation when government consumes such an enormous share of national resources and has involved itself in every almost every aspect of our lives.

I think your concession that you are not always in favor of smaller government illustrates my point exactly. It is the role of government that is the real issue.

Does the government always perform worse the bigger it is? Well, if that were true, then there should never be an exception to you "always" preferring smaller government.

Sometimes, a military will perform better with 150 fighter jets than with 100 fighter jets. It is quite clear that the government does not in fact always perform better when smaller.

Does the government perform worse at national defense than the private sector would? That is an interesting question. Certainly, the private sector does provide certain equipment, such as fighter jets, much more effectively than the government would likely be able to manufacture on its own. For the sake of argument anyway, let us assume that is true.

Could it be that a government utilizing private manufacturers for fighter jets might actually be more expensive than if it tried to manufacture such equipment on its own, but in exchange for the added expense, you would get higher quality?

In this case, isn't it also true that utilizing private contractors (as we currently do) would increase the size of government in terms of dollar expenditures even while increasing the quality of the resulting product. In other words, using free markets more might result in higher government expenditures, in this particular context.

What would a "free market advocate" prefer? A cheaper government that manufactures fighter jets on its own, or a more expensive government that gets higher quality fighter jets through a bidding process from private manufacturers?

It seems that, at least in some cases, a free market advocate should want "bigger" government in terms of expenditures. In fact, "bigger" government in terms of expenditures might actually mean "smaller" government in terms of people who are directly employed by the government.

My point is this. The idea that you want smaller government is merely a very imperfect proxy for what you really want, at least if you are a "free market advocate." It is too bad that the debate has to be distorted by this side show.

The real debate is not about the size of government. The real debate is about the role of government. You do not usually need to resort to generic references about the size of government in general to make the point that you believe that government is not the best actor to play a particular role in a particular context.

Look, I am not going to say that the size of government is never relevant. I am not saying that the argument smaller is better is never relevant. Larger organizations (including corporations and governments) sometimes enjoy economies of scale in some contexts, bureaucratic inertia in other contexts. I would say that arguments about the size of government have a firm and relevant place in particular contexts.

But, to take this one factor that is only sometimes relevant and make it into the major talking point that it has become is a matter of propaganda, not an intellectually clear perspective on the role of this sometimes relevant variable.

We focus on the size of government too much and the role of government too little. The size of government is relevant to our conceptions of the role of government in particular contexts where we believe that bureaucratic inertia will outweigh economies of scale or where we believe that "capture" of a large organization that is "captured" will create more inefficiencies and problems than a small organization would.

But, questions of size, while sometimes relevant, are clearly secondary to role, which is what really matters.

I think your concession that you are not always in favor of smaller government illustrates my point exactly. It is the role of government that is the real issue.

Does the government always perform worse the bigger it is? Well, if that were true, then there should never be an exception to you "always" preferring smaller government.

Even if government always performs worse the bigger it is, it still might be the case that we might want government in some instances because the alternatives are even worse. That merely indicates that my support for smaller government doesn't override other considerations 100% of the time. That, however, does not mean that big vs. small government isn't a real issue.

Similarly, I strongly oppose bombing cities. But if bombing a city is the only way to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII, it might be defensible in that instance. That doesn't mean that the desire to avoid bombing civilians isn't a genuine concern.

Well put David Welker. The primary issue is the role of government and what size it should be to perform that role is a secondary issue. By focusing almost exclusively on the secondary rather than primary issue, we risk conceding the larger point without which we never will accomplish a thing in terms of reducing the size, scope and role of government.

It may be that no mainstream politician is against free markets to the extent of supporting socialism.

I agree. So, do you think the folks accusing Obama of that during the election were simply wrong, or affirmatively lying?

The third obvious option is that some see "support for socialism" as a continuum, rather than an either/or question, and consider those like Obama who advocate, judging by his thinnish record, for a less limited role for government to be supporting socialism rather than, say, individualism.

Exactly; the people who called Obama a socialist simply had a nuanced view that political opinions lie on a continuum. They rejected simplistic either/or thinking.

LN,

"Exactly; the people who called Obama a socialist simply had a nuanced view that political opinions lie on a continuum. They rejected simplistic either/or thinking."

There's nothing nuanced about it. It's very black or white. More government is the slippery slope to socialism, less the hard slog to freedom. I don't think its quite that simple, but those that do are not necessarily wrong or lying.

When people are polled about the "size" of government they may very well be responding in terms of its effectiveness (or lack thereof). They may be thinking of their last experience at the post office or of their last time wading through the airport security procedures of TSA. Or, they may be government employees, like teachers, trying to move their bureaucracies to act. Or, individuals attempting to obtain a building permit from a recalcitrant and slow moving administration. In addition, size may be a surrogate for the proportion of their earnings that disappear via taxes/fees/premiums. In short, we do not really know what is running through the mind of the respondent when a particular question is posed. IMO "size" is ambiguous, as strange as that may seem.

JS,

"People who called Obama a socialist were wrong, either about Obama, or what "socialism" means. The only question is whether they were intentionally lying. I suspect some were, some weren't."

Thank you for restating your original point. My point is that it is a colorable argument that Obama is more socialist than, say, Ayn Rand. Do you disagree?

BTW, by that way of thinking, so are you, I, and 99% of the populace. I would say that it is highly likely that Obama will take the country in a more socialist direction. Would you claim that this is a bad thing?

There's also the "small s" distinction.