Remember how Grover Norquist and his buddies want to shrink government down so it can fit in a bathtub. Well, E.J. Dionne writes in today's WaPo that two such attempts failed because we convincingly made the case for why such moves are a bad idea long-term.
The idea that most voters hate government has an outsize influence on the thinking of both parties. Republicans try to exploit this feeling; Democrats try to get around it.
Only rarely do those who believe in active government take the argument head-on and insist that many of the things government does are necessary and, yes, good. The media almost never discuss what the sweeping dismantling of public services inherent in the rhetoric of the anti-government movement would mean in practice. It's far easier to replay footage from a few tea-party rallies over and over, and discuss some vague "mood" in the electorate.
Dionne refers to two attempts to pass a "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" in Maine and Washington. Both went down in flames--neither even got 45 percent of the vote. In both states, the "no" side pointed out that a TABOR would reduce school budgets and reduce home health visits.
In hindsight, it's difficult to wonder why they even tried in those states. Both are solid, solid blue. However, Norquist was hoping to start a flood.
"I think the Maine TABOR will sort of be a spark to other states," Grover Norquist, the country's premier anti-tax agitator, told voters during a visit to South Portland in October. "I'm talking to taxpayer activists and citizens' groups, all of whom are looking to see that if Maine, a moderate Northeastern state says, 'Yes, let's take a look at this,' it then becomes a stronger sell in Arizona and Washington and Oregon and Florida."
Dionne also thinks that this is actually a winning issue for us--if we can point out the dangers of listening to militant anti-government rhetoric.
Obama took a brief whack at doing so in his September health-care speech. He noted that his predecessors "understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited." Why aren't we hearing more of this?
Things like this make me envy Kevin Rudd dropping the hammer on anti-Kyoto wingnuts in Australia. Methinks that if this were a parliamentary system, we'd have more leeway to drop the hammer on wingers.