Sometimes I think political conversations revolve too much around the size of government and not enough around the function of government.
If you ask a group of conservatives whether they support big government or small government, 99% of them will say small government, and the other 1% will likely rant about something completely irrelevant without ever answering the question. However, I think both sides universally agree, and have always agreed across generations, that the number one priority of any government is keeping its people safe. Traditionally, this has been translated as keeping a strong military to physically protect the people. But isn't providing basic healthcare and a social safety net in the form of robust welfare programs also "keeping people safe"? Isn't a government failing to provide in those areas categorically failing at government's universally agreed upon primary function? Both of these things — government-sponsored healthcare and robust welfare programs — are traditionally "big government"ideas, but do they have to be when they directly correlate with providing a basic layer of protection to citizens? These programs don't guarantee equal outcomes for everyone, and they don't guarantee that everyone thrives, but they at least guarantee that everyone is safe.
Thinking of government in terms of size and not function has been leading me astray sometimes, I think.
Comments