Does McCain Still Agree with Reagan that Government is the Problem?

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

Comments

[MarceloAbans]

I find it interest how the consumer who understands, for the most part, that these corps are out to make a buck bare no responsibility for their actions. I'm not saying they are solely to blame but they are just as responsible for believing the snake oil sales men.

[chambs]

Ha! Populists of the world, unite! Yes, let's get more regulation and gov't programs, that will fix the problem and turn us into... Western Europe, yes, the one of double digit unemployment and a sagging GDP! The fact is, Reagan's polices ushered in twenty years of the economic prosperity for America that we are all so quick to forget. Free markets are not a panacea, and won't prevent natural market/economic cycles. Some regulation is good, but in reality, the housing problem is mostly the result of a LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING REGULATION, not deregulation. The fact that the FDIC and the OCC looked the other other way while option ARM's, liar loans and other fraudulent underwriting occurrred is the ultimate travesty. Let's get back to responsible underwriting, make looans only to those that can afford them (i.e. enough of the Community Reinvestment Act), that is the solution.

All gov't programs do is act as a respirator/backstop to the economy. Even FDR's trumped up New Deal programs ultimately were a bandaid. It was WW2 and the surge in industrial demand that led to an economic recovery.

[AlohaMark2]

From Wikipedia:

" If the European Union was a country it would be the world's largest economy ."

"It is estimated that the Eurozone will grow around 2.6 per cent this year (2006) [1], on a par with other industrialized nations such as the United States at 2.6% (Q2 2006) and 1.6 (Q3 2006)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Europe

You should also look at this sight that shows the exchange rate history of the Euro against the Dollar.

http://indexmundi.com/xrates/graph.aspx?c1=USD&c2=EUR&days=3650&lastday=20080930

Have you even been to Europe? Do you own a passport? You think us turing into Western Europe is scary? Try again-

[demandfortruth]

yeah dead on. maybe western europe in the early to mid 90's but with the EU now in full force, they way outdo anything that America even tries to offer up.

[feo]

That "surge in industrial demand" was funded by the gov't; who do you think paid for the airplane factories etc etc? In fact, gov't intrusion into the market can be an economic engine that drives prosperity. Here I am referring to Ike's infrastructure programs, countrywide electrification (TVA etc) even, in an earlier era, the railroads. No railroad was built in this country, no track was laid, without huge subsidies of one sort or another. Your backstop theory is hooey.

[RonInNebraska]

Oh come on chambs. Sure we were prosperous under Reagan...the national debt was less than a trillion when he took office. It was approximately 3.5 trillion when he left office.

I was in the lending business during the early '80's and saw a lot poor credit underwriting, it was motivated by pressure and greed from upper management. A lot of small loan offices were closed down and companies went out of business, but it was on a smaller scale and did not receive the notariety of today's situation.

Business and industry needs to be regulated or there will always be problems like the one we are having, simply because there will always be avarice, and as managers make their way up the ladders, my impression was that they feel less accountable.

This deficit spending and disregard for debt needs to stop. Reagan and W seemed to have championed it, but the long term effects are going to be devastating..I hope we do not see hyper-inflation in the coming years, but we have sure sown the seeds for it.

[Artos]

chambs,

Most countries in Western Europe have been around at least 700 to 1000 years at the minimum. We will be lucky if we make it another Hundred, much less a year. So what's your argument, I don't understand it?

[MrJoyboy]

Government is the problem if that government is Republican.

[PAMPAS]

Republicans serve to "cripple" government. The American people go along blithely without regard to the implications for them.

In some respects, the American people have bought a pig in a poke and refuse to see their complicity in a problem.

[Americatortures]

If Repulicans believe government is the problem,why do they run for government positions??? They should NOT be allowed,as their purpose is to ruin America as we know it,and send us back to 1776!!! We fought a war to keep a united states...NOT to have each state run on its own whims!!!

[kody1529]

Well technically we had the Articles of Confederation which did that very thing. But since there was no strong central authority to regulate interstate trade and commerce they decided to enact treason by throwing out the AoC and adopt our Constitution as we now know it.

[judithod]

Republicans run for government in order to prevent the Democrats from transforming the U.S. from a republic to a socialist country.

[albanaeon]

The problem isn't government. It's people. Sure in a perfect rational society, people play fair and don't need rules and police and such to force them to be fair. But, people can, and will, be greedy, selfish, panicky, and all sorts of other harmful states. That's why we have governments, rules, regulations, etc.

[tbrnotb]

Bravo, Arianna! You have mangaed to put the conditions of this government and country into perspective. I remember 1980. Everyone bought into that "shining city on the hill" that was America. it is the arrogance of the neo-conservative movement that put us where we are today. And shockingly of all, most Americans just don't get it.

My Republican family in Ohio blames this all on Clinton. Though they voted for Reagan, Bush, Dole and Bush again with spirit and support (lots of financial support), they refuse to take a hard look at the reasons why we are in this mess. They continue to cling to their ideology of "government is evil" though their followers and the people they vote for have been the government they so hate. I wish I could get through to these people, but alas iI give up! The republican brother-in-law (who donates more to the GOP than I make in a year) was considering Obama. Then he got a gander at Palin and is back in the fold. Intelligent people. Kind people. But such stupidity, it shocks me.

Is there any way to get through to these people?

[harschwarz]

CAPITALIST ANARCHY

In a way Republicans want a capitalist anarchy,devoid of any government restraints. This vision of unrepentent greed is the central tenent of this anarchy. The middle class and under class are necessary casualties of the wealthy,who's unbridled hysteria for wealth is the ultimate goal. People like Lawrence Kudlow don't want any government interference in the markets,because they are wealthy enough to sustain any loss,while millions are crushed. Kudlow wants to avert any restrictions on he and his wealthy buddies who love to play Monoply on Boardwalk. The natural corrections he talks about would destroy much of the middle class, and drive up the number of people in deep poverty. These financial anarchists hate government,and would do anything to do away with any programs that would help the "underclass" ,who,for them, are the necessary grease that moves the financial gears.

[PAMPAS]

It leaves me awestruck how slavish Republicans are to the concept of the free market. The idea of free markets was postulated to benefit the people whom it is to serve. This means it should be practical and practicable.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in the free market; just not in the unbridled free market. We can see how it mimics Darwinian "survival of the fittest" when it is used in its unalloyed form.

I would accept the Republicans' unyielding behavior in denying passage of the "Bailout" if I really thought that they believed it to be in the best interest of the general populace. But I believe their obstinance has more to do with their allegiance to the concept of the free market system, no matter what it wroughts.

[AngryCenter]

the "free market" is a myth. It requires INFORMATION to be free as well. Which it isn't - market information is held by a very few insiders, who profit from it and drip out a little bit to the rest of us.

The market is not "free", it's controlled - by the banks and executives. We might as well have it controlled by the government; at least we can vote them out once every 4 years.

[fisharefreinds]

Clearly Bill Clinton played his part in this economic wreck, but he did not do it all that well and would not take it all the way, and was taken out with a sex scandel so BIG (or made so big by the Press, & congress,
which are great at sensationalizing but not giving the people necessary information to make clear decisions) and purposely so. He would not go so gently, but he stayed put to prevent something. It was all for naught becuase the next election was a coup de tate. No one wanted Bush in 2000 or 2004, (the polls were crap) he (Bush) has done his work. He has purposely wrecked the economy. So, we need to think out of the box.
We have a mercenery army with a renewed contract paid for by the people of this country. Blackwater.
It is in the billions the amount of money they are going to get.
What are they for? And to whom are they beholden? Ask the candidates what they think about Blackwater and what they intend to do with them. Am I a paranoid nut case? Shouldn't we all be now?

[feo]

Yeah right. Then how come I never made less than $50,000 under Clinton and never above $30,000 under Bush? Clinton was a great president.

[fisharefreinds]

something worse is happening. in case you were hoping for a new regulated Wall Street, think again. when I put on CNBC tonight a newsmen was interviewing a woman economist who is supposedly brilliant, and she said, with a straight face, that Hoover and the crash of 29 was not the problem, but the policies of Roosevelt "prolonged the depression." I kid you not!
She said it numerous times and the way she was given authority in this interview it made me SICK!
My mother--who worked for Roosevelt and loved Eleanor--and my father are rolling over in their graves!
Where are they finding these fools and how do we shut up their LIES.

[OniChinko]

NYT’s laid it all out way back in 1999:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[JohnM2]

Excellent find!

[vote4kucinich]

This is exactly the right approach to the election. People may not be able to 'decide' between McCain or Obama but they should be able to decide about the role of government. and since 83% think the present government is going in the wrong direction (under the Republicans) that should make their choice pretty easy. This is probably why Mc Cain keeps talking about Obama instead of defending his record and his party. They are indefensible and the fiscal crisis has proven it.

[darker]

Republicans of today campaign permanently. Decisions they make are NOT about governing.
They're about CAMPAIGNING. So our government IS A CHRONIC MESS.
Therefore, Republicans CANNOT GOVERN at all.

When Republicans say "victory" and mean FAILURE.
Republicans BLAME, BLAME, BLAME.
Who should Republicans blame. THEMSELVES.

Today's IRRESPONSIBLE Republicans want 4, 8 MORE YEARS? ? ?
The Republicans WHO PROVED CANNOT GOVERN?
The Re[ib;ocams who ONLY DIVIDE US?

Irresponsible Republicans who crashed everything imaginable and corrupted for 8 years?

No thanks. NO MORE YEARS.
Republicans DESERVE TO LOSE the presidential election this time.
No more votes for FAILURES.

[Buddy McCue]

No, they're not about governing. Why would they be? A central point of the right wing ideology is that government agencies always fail, and that private companies are always more efficient. Another good Reagan quote about this: "The nine scariest words of the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our mistake was letting them be in charge of government when their clearly-stated view is that they don't believe in government. Would you hire a baby-sitter that hated children? It makes no sense.

[demandfortruth]

great point

[notnuffsaid]

One other question for McCain: "Senator, given the number of Vice-Presidents that have been required to assume the Presidency during their tenure, do you maintain that you have placed the Country before politics in selecting Sarah Palin for your running mate over any other member of your Party?"

[Mildmannered]

While Washington fiddles the credit markets are tightening further. The credit card companies are now lowering the credit limits on the cards, which means an automatic reduction in your credit score. This means you may no longer get that auto loan you qualified for yesterday or if you do it will be much more expensive.

[thinkingcatholic]

Not to get off on a tangent but Reagan was just another Republican hypocrite. He spent us into oblivion and worked to make a woman's right to choose the government's business....fiscally irresponsible and government interference where it has no business being....in a woman's uterus. The term 'less government' is republican code for 'more for the ultra rich and less for everyone else'. They have no qualms about more government when it's convenient for them.