It is hard not to notice a certain amount of glee in the aftermath of the
catastrophe of September 11. Some pundits and commentators have taken this
line: "So, where are all you government bashers now? Let's see one of you
step forward and criticize big government now that we need it to save us
from the terrorists."
I'm paraphrasing, of course. But similar words have been printed on news and
op-ed pages from New York to California. For example, Jeff Faux, a socialist
at the Economic Policy Institute, has written, "When the chips are down,
where do we turn? To the government's firefighters, police officers, rescue
teams.... And to big government's Army, Navy and Air Force." But such
sentiments are not coming from the so-called left alone. After all, the
Republican Party favors bailing out the airlines and an "economic stimulus
package." They're all Keynesians now.
It appears that the era of big government being over is over. This is good
news for lots of aspiring economic planners. Let's face it, there are
politicians and social scientists who have been frustrated for the last 20
years during which the case for big government has suffered badly. The
implosion of the Soviet Union and the obvious failure of one government
program after another has made these difficult times for socialists. They've
conjured up environmental disasters to jump-start the cause, but it hasn't
quite taken. Now there is the perceived need to beef up government in all
sorts of ways to protect us from terrorists. The beefing up is likely to
consist not only of the usual economic intervention, but also of more
widespread wiretapping (the Clinton administration already had set records
in this regard), email interception, and perhaps restrictions on
encryption.
Let's get serious. When Bill Clinton declared the era of big government
over, he didn't mean it and it didn't happen. Big government has not gone
away. The terrorists pulled off their awful crimes not because we have too
little government, but because we have too much. First, we have too much
government in foreign affairs. Washington and Jefferson advised that we as a
nation avoid political entanglement with other nations and that we practice
free trade with all. We long ago thumbed our noses at that sage advice and
entered hostility-generating entanglements all over the globe. Nowhere is
this truer than in the Middle East. Today it is considered a virtue to
be ignorant of U.S. meddling in the Middle East, but ignorance is neither
bliss nor security. Knowledge and understanding are preferable. They are the
path not to the exoneration of the terrorists, as some have inexcusably
claimed, but to the prevention of future outrages against humanity.
As for domestic policy, there has hardly been a retrenchment in the last 20
years. Ronald Reagan left the government larger than he found it. Federal
revenues doubled over his two terms. (Yes, the tax rate cuts stimulated
that, which means taxes weren't cut nearly enough.)
Bill Clinton had welfare reform forced on him by the Republicans, but with
government-provided daycare and health care, the budget has gone up, not
down. Government may have looked smaller next to the booming economy, but it
is not smaller in the amount of power and influence it wields over our
lives.
And while this big government was busy with all this meddling, it apparently
wasn't doing what it claims it does: protect us from aggression.
The issue now is whether our safety depends on government's getting even
bigger. It was the federal government that was charged with keeping the
cities and -- for gosh sakes! -- the Pentagon free from attack. It failed
miserably. But under the perverse rules of the political sector, when
government fails, we are forced to give it even more resources. No one even
resigns in disgrace, much less gets fired.
Before we embark on a spasm of government-building, which, believe me, will
not be only for the duration of the terrorist threat, let's recall that
America's greatness, prosperity, and resiliency have come from our freedom
and decentralization. Now is not the time to further concentrate power in
Washington.
