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 okay 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.
For those of you in the Pennsylvania area, on Monday I'll be debating Mike Huckabee in Hershey, Pennsylvania. For more information, click here.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Reagan actually voted for FDR and never expressed remorse, saying instead that "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me".
I'm not going to defend some rather ugly consequences for unfortunate individuals who, for example, were thrown out of mental hospitals to die on the streets of NY City during Reagan's term.
However, I don't think Reagan, who experienced the 30's, would be de-regulating the banking system.
Reagan insisted that the capital gains tax be the same as the tax on wages. That puts Reagan to the left of Obama and it puts today's Hannity and Ingrahams high on the mendacity scale when they invoke Reagan to suggest capital gains tax rates should be zero.
Dems shouldn't be condemning Reagan; they should be condemning republicans for abandoning Reagan and embracing casino economics of Phil Gramm. The total dissolution of McCain's campaign came when he voted to bail out Wall Street while excoriating Main Street for "whining".
The present republican political philosophy is totally out of touch with the times. The excesses of liberal politics of the 60's were done away with long ago and listening to republicans pretending they are in 1980 just isn't cutting it. We are in an age where the public wants to correct the excesses of the last 8 years, not go back to 1980.
Reaganomics was based in there core principles:
1.- The Government is the problem; not the solution, thus…
2.- Government should get out of the way and therefore deregulation is the way to go, because…
3.- The market economy will take care of everything automatically is just a matter of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and, in time, prosperity would trickle down to the rest of the people (presumably following some misapplied of gravity or something!)
Our economic meltdown is proving the government IS the solution and the deregulation does not work; the real problem is when government is “run” by the very INCOMPETENT and CORRUPT which historically have been the Republicans. “Trickle down” has not worked either. If anything, American workers productivity gains in the last twenty years have not resulted in comparatively equal salary or compensation improvements.
Now, as recent as the VP debate, Governor Palin asked for the government gets out of the way and the McCain tax cuts. It’s clear they are following the old, broken, Republican script even as they try to disassociate themselves from Bush.
In the next debate Obama should highlight that McCain’s program is exactly the same economic philosophy that has gotten us into this mess in the first place, and how that’s not change byt truly more of the same!
How to deal as effectively as possible with a smear campaign?
Point out how desperate these ads are and that desperation is exactly what we don’t need right now in our country.
Use actual McCain clips and use Obama’s voice commenting on them.
For instance: McCain has an ad that blatantly demeans Obama or uses old lies as truth.
An effective Obama response would start with Obama saying that his opponent appears to be getting desperate. A portion of the McCain ad then runs.
Obama finishes with “This kind of desperation doesn’t help our economy, our need for a better health care, our need to leave an ill conceived war, etc.....
My name is Barack Obama. We need steadiness right now. There are problems we need to solve.
Senator McCain's campaign was involved in some highly questionable actions in helping halt the Nevada State Republican convention before it had finished its work. A full account of that is given at the following link on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgy6J6jCyBQ
BTW, Good job on the blog Ari
Senator Obama's plans are about fairness.
Maybe you'd be happy with a third world approach to welfare - let them just beg in the street; or housing - let them build their shacks in shanty towns?
I am not.
I am first and foremost a civilized human being, and that very act of civilization is what demands of me a willingness and desire to do what I can to ensure a first world life for everyone in this country. Secondly, I can then devote energies to ensuring the same for others around the world - but charity, and humanity, begins at home.
Furthermore, Democrats need a large underclass to get elected. If everyone was well to do then who would need them.
The top 10% pay 68.0% of the federal income tax
The bottom 50.0% pay 3.3%
Two years of a slim democratic majority, constantly denied progress through filibuster and veto, is being blamed for 12 years of republican house and senate rule.
Wonderful.
Bringing up Iraq and claims that the wiretapping was illegal and all that is an irrelevant digression. All of those actions have been properly defended, although not accepted by the left.
What's going on now is the classic "throw the bums out" reaction to very bad news. It's the way of politics. When the Democrats take over, they'll make their mistakes and they'll be the ones hung out to dry. The pendulum never stops swinging.
It's obvious from his record that McCain has never supported regulation and it is quite clear in his and her speeches that he still believes that deregulation is the way out of it. Yet - the only people I have heard comment on this are John Harwood on CNBC and now Arianna. Words are important and we all need to listen to what is actually being said. It would be nice if the media actually reported any of this, but it appears that this is all too complicated for them. Hopefully the American public is paying enough attention to recognize the obvious contradiction.
"John McCain, I read about Teddy Roosevelt and you sir are no Teddy Roosevelt".
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5071.html
for a rebuttal.