How Big Is Too Big?
A crucial issue in this year’s presidential election is the size and scope of government. Mitt Romney’s words from his website have resounded from many a Republican speech and campaign commercial: “The mission to restore America to health begins with reducing the size of the federal government . . . As president, Mitt Romney will cut federal spending and regulation, . . . reducing the size and reach of the federal government, . . .” His vice-presidential running mate is best known for his attempts to reduce government spending by cutting back on federal government entitlement programs.
I am deeply troubled by this. In this essay I seek to explain why.
At the outset it is important to note that this position adopted by the Romney-Ryan ticket is not traditional conservatism, but libertarianism. Traditional conservatives recognize the limitations and frailties of human nature and human wisdom. Thus they see government as having a proper role in society in restraining the darker forces in human nature. They fear both an overly weak and an overly intrusive government. And they believe societal and political change should come slowly and incrementally. Libertarianism, on the other hand, has a never-say-die faith in human nature and in impersonal forces such as the free market to lead to a strong, equitable society if only left alone.
This means a key issue—in my thinking the key issue—in this election is not liberalism versus conservatism, but liberalism versus libertarianism.
And I am convinced that libertarianism is far removed from a Christian understanding of government and public policy. A Christian perspective on public policy, as all of us who are writing these essays agree, includes both human beings’ fallen, sinful nature and government as a God-established institution to promote justice and the common good in society. There is an active, appropriate role for government in society. The picture of prosperity and societal advancement emerging out of social and economic competition with minimal government intervention is closer to social Darwinism than a Christian view of society and government.
This is not to say that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are thorough-going libertarians or social Darwinists. Far from it. But what I find disturbing is a drum-beat of criticism of government-run programs. And this is combined with a call to reduce today’s huge deficits, which, in turn, is also combined with pledges not to raise taxes and not to cut—or even to increase—defense spending. This can only be accomplished by huge cuts in the remaining, domestic programs. Thus Republican calls to reduce the size and scope of government—while falling short of a full-blown libertarianism—must be seen as moving us strongly in that direction. And that concerns me deeply.
In a brief essay such as this it is of course impossible to fully explain my concern. But I can give some insight into my concern by citing three government programs that I believe are promoting justice and the common good, but would likely suffer under a move towards libertarianism.
One is the Pell Grant program of financial assistance to college students from low and moderate income families. (The House-passed budget that Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, was the major author would cut funding for Pell Grants by $170 billion over 10 years.) The Pell Grant program is anything but a give-away program, encouraging dependency on government. Instead it is a program that creates opportunities for persons working to obtain the education needed to develop their God-given abilities and to fulfill their God-given calling. With even community college costs rising, it helps level the playing-field of opportunity and thereby is a justice-promoting program. And it advances the common good by helping assure an educated citizenry, able to contribute meaningfully in an increasingly competitive world.
Government programs that lead to cleaner air and water and more efficient use of natural resources also promote justice and the common good. Here individual actions such as recycling one’s waste materials, driving more fuel-efficient cars, and properly disposing of household toxic wastes are good and God-honoring. But if I do so and even if half or more of the population would do so and others do not, the common good would still suffer and God’s good creation would still be despoiled and the resources he has put in his earth would still be wasted. Waste materials that could be recycled, but end up in landfills, waste resources and threaten future ground water pollution for all of us. Persons who drive fuel inefficient cars drive up the costs of gasoline for all. Toxic wastes improperly disposed of—whether by households or industry—can cause cancer or other diseases. Progress in creation care depends on us acting together, as a society, and that means government programs.
My third example of government action that promotes justice and the common good is the PEPFAR program begun under the leadership of President George W. Bush. PEPFAR stands for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. It is a foreign aid program that has sent billions of dollars to Africa and some other countries being ravaged by the HIV/AIDS virus. It has literally saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of lives. Part of the reason for its success is that it is working through many nongovernmental, local, often faith-based organizations. Yet the Romney website—true to its less-government-the-better mindset—does not mention the PEPFAR program (even though the website has a special tab on Africa) and promises to cut foreign aid.
Do not take what I have written here to suggest that I believe bigger, more active government is always better or that government programs always promote justice and the common good. That is hardly the case. And even the best of government programs could be made to work more efficiently and effectively. Also, I believe that in weighing for whom to vote this fall, the Romney-Ryan ticket’s libertarian leanings must be weighed against the Obama-Biden’s ticket’s commitment to protecting abortion as a right and its weak approach to protecting the religious freedom rights of religiously-based organizations.
My basic point is that there is a robust role for government in society, a robust role that is in keeping with the God-given role of government to promote justice and the common good in a world where sin and brokenness are still very much with us. What is needed is a thoughtful discussion of where government is working well and where it is not, where government action is needed and where it is not. And that is what I am not hearing this year.
I thought this was such an insightful essay. I agree with the author's concern about the election looking more like Libertarianism vs. Libertarianism. The problem will be and probably will always be where exactly should those cuts come from? What one person views as a government program that promotes justice, another person would say is wasteful spending and unnecessary. Unfortunately non of this is actually being discussed by either candidate! It would be nice if we could get some of these things brought up in the upcoming debate!
I thought this was such an insightful essay. I agree with the author's concern about the election looking more like Libertarianism vs. Libertarianism. The problem will be and probably will always be where exactly should those cuts come from? What one person views as a government program that promotes justice, another person would say is wasteful spending and unnecessary. Unfortunately non of this is actually being discussed by either candidate! It would be nice if we could get some of these things brought up in the upcoming debate!
I thought this was such an insightful essay. I agree with the author's concern about the election looking more like Libertarianism vs. Libertarianism. The problem will be and probably will always be where exactly should those cuts come from? What one person views as a government program that promotes justice, another person would say is wasteful spending and unnecessary. Unfortunately non of this is actually being discussed by either candidate! It would be nice if we could get some of these things brought up in the upcoming debate!
Romney and Ryan may know how to speak Libertarian jargon, but they are NOT Libertarian or libertarian. There is nothing "libertarian" about Ryan voting for (or Romney saying he would vote for) the federal government being able to indefinitely detain American citizens. Ryan voting for the TARP and stimuluses (stimuli?) and raising the debt limit is also NOT Libertarian – and Romney also stated he agreed with stimulus plans. Romney instituted Romneycare and has promised to repeal and REPLACE Obamacare, which is NOT Libertarian. There is absolutely NOTHING libertarian about Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, or else Ron Paul supporters would be flocking to them in droves, which they are NOT.
Romney and Ryan may know how to speak Libertarian jargon, but they are NOT Libertarian or libertarian. There is nothing "libertarian" about Ryan voting for (or Romney saying he would vote for) the federal government being able to indefinitely detain American citizens. Ryan voting for the TARP and stimuluses (stimuli?) and raising the debt limit is also NOT Libertarian – and Romney also stated he agreed with stimulus plans. Romney instituted Romneycare and has promised to repeal and REPLACE Obamacare, which is NOT Libertarian. There is absolutely NOTHING libertarian about Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, or else Ron Paul supporters would be flocking to them in droves, which they are NOT.
Romney and Ryan may know how to speak Libertarian jargon, but they are NOT Libertarian or libertarian. There is nothing "libertarian" about Ryan voting for (or Romney saying he would vote for) the federal government being able to indefinitely detain American citizens. Ryan voting for the TARP and stimuluses (stimuli?) and raising the debt limit is also NOT Libertarian – and Romney also stated he agreed with stimulus plans. Romney instituted Romneycare and has promised to repeal and REPLACE Obamacare, which is NOT Libertarian. There is absolutely NOTHING libertarian about Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan, or else Ron Paul supporters would be flocking to them in droves, which they are NOT.
Where government is working well should be defined as bringing in X amount of money and spending X amount of money. Not X amount plus anything. Could some one show me where that is actually happening with the federal government of The United States of America.
We can not continue to spend more than we bring in. It does not work for your household or mine or any one else for that matter. Why would we think it could work for the federal government?
Where government is working well should be defined as bringing in X amount of money and spending X amount of money. Not X amount plus anything. Could some one show me where that is actually happening with the federal government of The United States of America.
We can not continue to spend more than we bring in. It does not work for your household or mine or any one else for that matter. Why would we think it could work for the federal government?
Where government is working well should be defined as bringing in X amount of money and spending X amount of money. Not X amount plus anything. Could some one show me where that is actually happening with the federal government of The United States of America.
We can not continue to spend more than we bring in. It does not work for your household or mine or any one else for that matter. Why would we think it could work for the federal government?
What I don't seem to hear in this conversation is the role of the church upon it's country. Our problems are not the result of to much or too little government, the problem is we, the people, have relinguished our God given responsibilty over to the government.
We don't care for the poor, the orphans, or the widows as biblically instucted. We don't support a local church as biblically instructed. We don't tithe as biblically instructed. We don't educate ourselves as to the values of those who we elect to govern us and how their values measure against God's values.
The average tithe of a church-goer today is below 2%, and how many citizens actually attend a church and tithe regularly?
We have heard the gospel preached more than any other nation in the world. We the people, have no excuse. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for the run muck government we have today.
What I don't seem to hear in this conversation is the role of the church upon it's country. Our problems are not the result of to much or too little government, the problem is we, the people, have relinguished our God given responsibilty over to the government.
We don't care for the poor, the orphans, or the widows as biblically instucted. We don't support a local church as biblically instructed. We don't tithe as biblically instructed. We don't educate ourselves as to the values of those who we elect to govern us and how their values measure against God's values.
The average tithe of a church-goer today is below 2%, and how many citizens actually attend a church and tithe regularly?
We have heard the gospel preached more than any other nation in the world. We the people, have no excuse. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for the run muck government we have today.
What I don't seem to hear in this conversation is the role of the church upon it's country. Our problems are not the result of to much or too little government, the problem is we, the people, have relinguished our God given responsibilty over to the government.
We don't care for the poor, the orphans, or the widows as biblically instucted. We don't support a local church as biblically instructed. We don't tithe as biblically instructed. We don't educate ourselves as to the values of those who we elect to govern us and how their values measure against God's values.
The average tithe of a church-goer today is below 2%, and how many citizens actually attend a church and tithe regularly?
We have heard the gospel preached more than any other nation in the world. We the people, have no excuse. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for the run muck government we have today.
First, I need to thank the four readers for their thoughtful, challenging responses to my original essay. Let me react to each of them in turn, for their comments deserve thoughtful responses.
First, I believe Jeffery Ferrell meant to write in his second sentence that I see the election campaign being liberalism (and not libertarianism) versus libertarianism. At least that is what I was attempting to say. I agree that as soon as one talks about cutting government programs disagreements arise. This is where we citizens (and especially we who are Christian citizens) need to begin by thinking through basic biblical principles and perspectives, such as those to which we as commentators have agreed and that are posted on this website. They mean God has assigned government a genuine, active role in society. And they mean the standard to evaluate existing and proposed programs ought not to be our own self-interest (“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”). Justice and the common good are the correct standards. But this does not lead to direct, neat answers to today’s specific issues, including which government programs should or should not be reduced or eliminated. Here is where prudential judgments must be made, judgments guided by our minds, by discussions with fellow citizens who share our basic principles, by reflection, and by prayer. Hopefully, this “Respectful Conversation” is helping many in this process.
Maria Mitchell rightly points out that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan is libertarian in the full sense of the word. They still see government playing a more active role in society than what a true libertarian would. At several points is my essay, I refer to Romney and Ryan as not being thorough-going libertarians and as having libertarian leanings. The point that I was making is that in their websites, speeches, and campaign commercials the overall thrust is towards less government (except in the case of defense spending), lower taxes, and the power of free market forces to correct societal problems. This, in my view, moves them clearly in the libertarian direction, not in the direction of traditional conservatism that thinkers such as Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk represent. Burke and Kirk saw the evil propensities of human beings and human societies needing to be constrained and limited by social structures such as religion and tradition and, yes, by law and government.
Tim Lorman points out that no government can indefinitely survive spending more money than it takes in. He is correct. The difficult question is if, when, and under what conditions government should spend more than it takes in on a short-term, temporary basis (and how long a time period can still qualify as being short-term and temporary). In a time of war national security, indeed national survival, may dictate a government needs to spend more than it takes in, as the United States did during World War II. In times of economic recession or depression, the taxes a government collects nose-dive due to people earning less and spending less. And the expenses incurred by government rise, as more persons and businesses qualify for various forms of financial help. And many (probably most) economists agree that just when consumers are spending less government ought not to be cutting its spending, which would add to the depressed economy. Even here, of course, the prudential judgments I wrote about earlier need to come into play. And this leaves the problem that, given human nature, it is much easier for our elected officials to increase spending and/or cut taxes when the economy weakens than to cut spending and/or increase taxes when the economy is strong. This is where I would hope responsible, Christian citizens would step up and advocate for reasonable tax increases and/or cuts in less needed programs as the economy strengthens. This is what I believe a commitment to the common good requires, even though it goes against our human nature (our sin-corrupted human nature).
This leads to a few of my thoughts in regard to Dave Cline’s comments. He rightly emphasizes the role the church needs to play. I agree fully our churches need to be more active in meeting the needs of the poor, persons suffering from domestic abuse, the homeless, the drug addicted, and the sick. As they do so, government would need to do less. At the same time, we also need to recognize and applaud the many modern-day saints who are already serving those in need. But there is an additional role for Christian citizens to play. It is to advocate for public policies that are in keeping with justice and the common good. Churches and individuals cannot be expected to meet all or most of the needs present in society. God has established government to work to meet those needs as well. Active Christians working directly to help our fellow human beings suffering from needs and active Christian citizens urging their government to do what it can to help those with needs are both part of God’s will. Both are ways to live the lives of compassion and love our God calls us to live.