large government? small government?

I see an interesting thing happening at the moment. All the people complaining the loudest, publicly, about their “big government”, as they coin, are really bitter opponents of the health care reform movement. As the democrats presented a referendum to Bush Jr., in the form of our current president, now some groups are eager to propose a referendum on the humanism that was sold to America (in the package of “health care reform legislation”- introduced initially as “Medicare for all”). Still, yet to hear representation for those who have yet to find affordable insurance in America, opponents of this promise made to Americans, won’t now say outright that is what they are opposing or have opposed. It’s much safer to ride the wave against the big, big, big, government with a broad long board. Did you notice that the “big government” label was introduced just as the democrats were victorious in signing the legislation? (By the way, that was favored in public majority). My question is: What did pass exactly? And, why are “tea party” members, as they call themselves, gaining traction now? To answer my own question or yours, it is because they seized the attention of people who fear humanism and lump those people together with those who favor concentration of wealth where it has lied for years.
These “tea party” groups don’t articulate their specific complaints about big government. Do they complain about expansive government intelligence operations? Or, expansive special interest groups and lobby or military incursions into foreign regions? No, they don’t. I haven’t really seen this as their focus. In fact they would probably say they are glad we have a “big government” to supply those goals for them. So, their criticism of “big government” is a device that aims to endear the hearts and minds of, well frankly, pretty sentimental… and outright foolish people.
Some of these leaders in fact might even praise God for the military operations set by the former President and Congress. You might ask them that? They might even tell you (shamelessly) that they support such incursions whole-heart.
And, their “movement” against “big government” was incognito through the two Bush Jr. terms (Nearly eight straight years of war).Why do they speak up now? They didn’t really have a voice until now, but they also found an opportunity.
One thing they do make quite visible, is their referendum to this current president- trying to render him an illegitimate President… suggesting he used false birth documentation to qualify for office. But they haven’t attacked full force, yet. Well, they’re just one referendum. They want to reign in all the opponents of expansive government power that Americans have witnessed in one way or another (last decade), and they want to focus it all in, now, to gain political clout. They seem to forget that private industry failed to meet the affordability level of most Americans, when it comes to health insurance (premiums etc.). In this way they err with Republicans who opposed “Medicare for all”. Using the size of government as a demon, they likely hope to direct the anger of the poor against “big government”. Even though, as a whole, there is no agreement as to where, or in which aspect “big government” is most evil.
Sure, this is political strategy that seems to be working for them. It’s also undermining humanist and more socialist agendas unfortunately.
I just would like to point out that the size of a government doesn’t correlate with the amount of freedom it can promise to itself and its people. Look how little real freedom the people of an island south-east of us have had for decades, and how small its government is. It’s a great history lesson for those who don’t know. And POW’s now “live” there under constant watch within quasi-US territory, on that same island, indefinitely. Well I guess the average Cuban has benefited with great-freedoms, by comparison, compliments of a huge government.
The American electorate must choose its own destiny. That is incumbent on each individual and the collective individuals. I’m just pointing out some obvious political devices that are being used right now.
I’ll look forward to seeing what other parties “say” as they begin to take notice to the “tea party”. As for my party, well it’s not perfect either. [Update 1.20.2014: “Obama-Care” has received much scrutiny, from the “tea party” movement mostly, long after this post was published. What seems to have taken shape is widespread mistrust of what laws exactly are being passed in the healthcare reform. In my view, the “tea party” has a right to bawk. In my view, humanism in the laws, has fallen short of original intent, as those who cannot afford premiums are left behind. However, it does appear that something positive has evolved since this post: “Medicaid” may be receiving the financial support it needs in providing healthcare to those who cannot afford. That is good, because enlisting in healthcare is now a requirement that is otherwise punishable by a fine. And, since January 1, 2014, companies (it appears) are prohibited from turning away enrollees based on pre-existing medical conditions that they have.]

This entry was posted in Health and wellness, News and politics, Organizations, US Politics. Bookmark the permalink.