Smaller Government Isn’t “Smart”, “Better” or Even Republican

1 05 2010

Today President Obama gave a graduation speech about how we’re fighting over government and how it should change, and whether we should be fighting each other or figuring things out together:

It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said that the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges. It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said that “the object of government is the welfare of the people.” He is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, and establishing our National Park system. . .

One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read “Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,” which is essentially like saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.”

For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government is the police officers who are here protecting us and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university – a place that is doing life-saving research, catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small.

The truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades between more government and less government doesn’t really fit the times in which we live.

We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt. But we’ve also seen clearly the dangers of too little government – like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.

So what we should be asking is not whether we need a “big government” or a “small government,” but how we can create a smarter, better government.




6 responses

1 05 2010
Nance Confer

Smarter and better?

Great idea! 🙂


1 05 2010

But what shall we brand that movement? If we can’t get a snappy acronym for signs and shirts, how can we beat all the other kids’ acronyms and rule the school?
[tongue sticking out]

1 05 2010
Nance Confer

And if we can’t trot out our shopworn pet solutions and spin out the same old saws, what use is this idea? If the way government could work better and smarter is something boring like eating sensibly and getting moderate exercise and there isn’t a magic pill to make us fit, how will we ever sell it? Well, this Obama fellow better keep working on it.


1 05 2010

That reminds me of something in the NYT today, about Michelle Obama’s campaign clothes designer from Chicago, Pinto. She’s just gone out of business, saying it was wonderful her designs had become famous but she regretted that it was for the more conservative clothes, not her bolder designs. . .

1 05 2010

Just saw the WH Correspondents Dinner btw — he might have muffed the first pitch on opening day but tonight he hit one out of the park. 🙂

2 05 2010

His 16-minute dinner video is here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: