James Lindgren goes through great pains to show that small government supporters aren’t racist. There is one problem. Small government supporters don’t actually exist.
Oh, there are a handful. A few intellectuals who are opposed to government expansion because they think it is in opposition to liberty or that it creates fundamental incentive problems. There are a few who distrust democracy generally. Then there is a somewhat larger swath of traditionalists who reason that small government is what the Founders wanted and is therefore by definition good.
The vast majority of people, however, view government as the Authority. Of those people, some of them are mad at the state of world and thus blame the Authority. This fuels some anti-government sentiment, but not small government views.
For example, contrast the number of people wanting to slash government budgets and bust government unions with the number of people who think that the FDA serves to restrict the right of people to buy drugs they believe are useful, that border controls deny people their fundamental right to contract with the worker of their choice or that statutory rape laws interject the state into the love lives of people who are permitted to operate a motor vehicle but not their own sexuality.
Anti-government folks are those who want to get back at the government and government employees for perceived grievances. They are just sticking it to the man who stuck it to them. This is why the Tea Party exploded in the wake of Bank Bailouts and Mortgage Modification Plans.
The anger was not that government was too big, it was that government was unjust. It was rewarding people who were behaving badly. Likewise much of the anti-welfare sentiment is fueled by a feeling that the government is simply rewarding bad behavior. This is not a belief that government is too big or too powerful but that it is misusing its power. The focus on fairness not bigness is why support for slashing Medicare’s high-cost low-efficacy cancer treatments is not statistically different than zero.
What most people want is a just government. A government that treats its people fairly. This is why, as I argued before, ethnic unity is so important. People have an innate sense that it is just to take care of their own. This isn’t “racist”, its human.
An old joke goes that a reporter asked Hilbert if it was true that only three people on earth understood General Relativity. Hilbert paused, counted himself and Einstein and then mused aloud, “I am trying to think of who the third person is.”
Are there two people on earth who do not believe that we have an obligation take care of our own, however, he or she defines “our own?” I know Bryan Caplan. I am trying to think of the second.

5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ March 17th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Zenobia
Here we go.
Thursday ~ March 17th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Sister Y
All humans want to control others but be protected from coercion themselves.
All people want to benefit their in-group at the expense of out-groups.
Politics is about shifting the burden of coercion from group to group. Very rarely does it involve ethical meta-analysis of how much coercion is okay, and fair methods for distributing coercion. But many people realize that it’s an effective strategy to cloak burden-shifting/in-group loyalty in the language of objective fairness.
Few people seem to reach a stage of development where they can conceive such abstractions. And it’s hardly adaptive to do so.
Saturday ~ March 19th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Will
Regarding GR- it wasn’t Hilbert, it was Eddington. Its also not a joke- Ludwik Silberstein (a physicist) relayed the story as the question asker.
Sunday ~ March 20th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Morgan Warstler
Karl,
A just government is a smaller government.
A just government says, “since we want the best chance to provide public works deemed valuable, we’re ending Bacon-Davis.”
Since we are gong to gut public employee unions… The future of progressive thought is:
1. Balance Budget Amendment – where they get to / to fight for butter over guns on even playing field. These days those damn Repubs spend all the money.
2. Frugal government is good government – when something costs less, people want more of it. Think GOV2.0
3. Only Macro stimulus, never Fiscal.
This creates a new bipolar system with a growing base of Libertarians on one side and everyone else on the other.
Monday ~ March 21st, 2011 at 11:56 am
Ryan P
Karl, can I push you on that last paragraph, in view of (my understanding of) your immigration position? Suppose we agree that “we have an obligation take care of our own” but not those who are not “our own.” Why wouldn’t it then be coherent for someone to say, “I want to restrict immigration, because notwithstanding mutually beneficial transactions, yadda yadda, I have a duty to take care of new people if and only if they cross the border and I don’t want to undertake that duty”?
Such a position has always struck me as incoherent for a combination of the Pareto principle and my belief that preferences out to be time-consistent, or at the very least we shouldn’t make policy based on preferences that are time-inconsistent by assumption. But here it sounds like you’re saying that not only is this a coherent position, but it’s one that should be plausible to everyone except Bryan Caplan.