2012 is gonna be nasty


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

2012 is gonna be nasty.

There’s no doubt that we’re in for a high level of personal nastiness and invective. This election is not going to be about some minor adjustment to spending, or some trifling adjustment of tax rates, or some nibbling at the edges of the regulatory state. What is at stake in the 2012 election is the continuation of a world-view; a political philosophy that sees ever-larger government as the cure to whatever ails us. This next election is the first big battle for the survival of that worldview as the majority view of the political class, or the survival of the insurgent TEA party idea that government has become to large, too intrusive, and too expensive, so therefore must be radically reduced. There is little room to compromise between these two visions of government. Indeed, in most ways, they are worldviews that are mutually exclusive. Over the next decade or so, we are going to learn which of these two views will prevail, and if the US, as presently composed, will remain a united polity.

Share

2 comments

  • the crazy thing is .. it will be worse in other countries the worse it gets here .. i don’t think the tea party will grow but it will survive as a useful politcal tool .. i think the big government vision will win out as globalization makes the world grow smaller .. america will lead the world to into the next set of boom years as we expand into space .. but yes as the post says it is gonna get nastier before it gets less nasty , there are still too many people holding on to old ideas

  • I am wondering what is the best way to measure the size of government . is it the number of government workers? the number of government workers and contractors? the size of government income? the size of government debt? cashflow? the size of our military? the total square footage of all government buildings? acreage of land? % control of US economy? it seems to me we need the US government to be as small as possible while still being the big enough to do things we need it to do effectively . i think tea partiers want unreasonably small government . i am worried about how we will compete globally if our government is too “small” relative to our needs . whatever “small” size means . if we make the government too small we will have to rely on the private sector too much it will hurt everyone . so maybe if we can agree on what exactly we mean by the size of government we can get closer to some kind of consensus . we could at least come closer to quantifying how far apart the two sides are

    I just re read what I wrote and am thinking now we can’t agree on what we really mean by the size of government because we can’t agree on what the proper role of government is . duh . the size of government relative to the role of government – i think the confusion is somewhere in there . i don’t think i made any progress here heheh

    i am as fit as a bull moose

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *