The “Big Government” vs “Small Government” conversation

Over the last few years, our critique of the progressive movement has been more detailed than simply accusing you of wanting “big government.” You guys want something more than just an increased roster of federal employees; you want power over individual Americans' lives and a fundamental transformation of America. We've been successfully revealing the authoritarian and anti-Constitutional roots of progressive ideology, and we've explained that modern progressives will achieve those long-desired goals if you're not defeated and your existing programs aren't rolled back.

But please … feel free to keep caricaturing us as fearful, thuggish dullards angrily clinging to our Bibles and our guns. Sneer at us and tell each other that we're simply unable to understand that our own best interests lie in relinquishing our liberties and our paychecks to the kindly bureaucrats in Washington who know what's best for us. It's working out wonderfully for you.

Alo, seriously.

(Aside: Brian, you know you're on to something when you shake Konsen loose. Heh)

You can't argue authoritarian and anti-Constitutional “roots” having sat silent during 8 years of George W. Bush. You lose. You simply can't play the game anymore if you are going to enter it with such utter disingenuousness. What did you breathlessly “reveal” during those years, Alo? Did you argue against Bush signing a flag desecration act (that didn't pass). Sounds like free speech to me – abhorrent, yes…but free. Did you stand up in protest when Bush was institutionalizing so-called “post-911″ abuses of liberty and freedom? Or did you sit silent because he was “a conservative”. You just can't have it both ways. You either lied then and betrayed your values or you are now.

Maybe you argued that Bush's Office of Faith Based Initiatives – which awards millions in taxpayer dollars (collected by those of faith and those agnostic and atheist) – was an erosion of our Constitutional heritage of a wall of separation between Church and State. I missed it.

It's possible that you have argued that the continuing attempts by conservatives to impose their morality on women and gays alike belies the underlying notions of freedom and liberty our founding fathers intended.

Again. Missed it.

Do you get the feeling that you are entering a gun fight with a knife here? You might want to ammo up a bit before we continue. You won't win any argument that the underlying theme of recent “conservative” administrations has been about liberty and The Constitution. Far from it.

Where were you, Alo, when the Office of Legal Counsel was busy crafting secret legal opinions that drastically expanded the executive powers of the POTUS, effectively shitting directly upon The Constitution? Did you call in sick that day to conservative school?

We don't caricature you as much as you do. We just point and laugh.

I'll ask a question that Modern likes to ask to diffuse these silly liberties arguments. Which liberties (specifically) have you lost since Obama was elected. Which ones have you been forced to relinquish in the face of a Progressive President. List them. Here. Specifically.

I'm also pretty certain if you judge the effectiveness of an ideology purely on your paycheck that you may find that it's a bit fatter under the current President than it was under the last. Unless, of course, you happen to be ultra-rich – which means you got massive tax breaks under Bush. Evens out I guess.

What's working well for us is continuing to expose the hypocrisy that is modern day conservatism.

modern american “conservatives” would have been british crown loyalists at the founding of this country.

Taxing certain economic classes while exempting others is not equal rights.
Also, government welfare programs such as housing produce poor results and just end up being demolished after the people living there trash it up. It is a waste of tax-payer money.
The reason those people are poor in the first place is because of government (failing public schools, welfare programs creating entitlement attitudes, taxes on businesses as well as income, greater government presence in the health care industry etc…).
As a side note, Social Security was never meant to be an entitlement. FDR created it to provide income for the elderly unemployed during the Great Depression.

You’re a few months late on your response to this post Matthew, and you aren’t really even addressing anything in the post.

It sounds like you have a lot of jumbled up conservative talking points to discuss and I recommend you start your own blog to do just that. Lord knows we can never have enough uninformed conservative bloggers spouting off on the internets.