//... but if he turns out to be a disappointment we'll swiftly return back to the era of conservative (semi)-dominance.//
I've felt for some number of years that the US public has been getting more and more schizophrenic about the issue of how big they really wanted their government to be. On the one hand, it likes to think that we still live according to the country's (alleged) founding values of small limited government, but on the other, there is a tendency to look to the government for solutions to more and more problems. Basically, we expect fairly low taxes but also for government activity to remain the same or grow, and, if pressed, a lot of people will state with conviction that the only reason the government can't do more with less is 'waste'.
Like any contradiction, sooner or later enough stress builds up and leads to slippage, whereupon the stress is reduced. It could be that we are getting close as a society to accepting higher rates of taxation for more benefits.
If that happens, we'll still have two parties, but at least the Republicans will have to shift more to the left from where they are on economic issues.
In any case, those are just my pontifications. If you glean something more concrete from the data, do share the insights.
//On the one hand, it likes to think that we still live according to the country's (alleged) founding values of small limited government, but on the other, there is a tendency to look to the government for solutions to more and more problems.//
My thoughts exactly. The aging baby boomers suuden yearning for a nanny state that would keep them safe and solvent if they obey all the laws, go to work every day and do not question the authorities.
I was thinking more along the lines of slow evolutions of core attitudes and assumptions, where over time, some types of government services come to be perceived more and more as a right.
In case of the essential basics, like food, or even medical care, it's not really an unnatural viewpoint for a wealthy society. The worry is the unintended consequences. I am not sure what the downside of the food stamps may be, but health care is one area where one can screw things up pretty badly, and yet it's an area fewer and fewer people feel can be left in its present form, and with good reasons.
I've felt for some number of years that the US public has been getting more and more schizophrenic about the issue of how big they really wanted their government to be. On the one hand, it likes to think that we still live according to the country's (alleged) founding values of small limited government, but on the other, there is a tendency to look to the government for solutions to more and more problems. Basically, we expect fairly low taxes but also for government activity to remain the same or grow, and, if pressed, a lot of people will state with conviction that the only reason the government can't do more with less is 'waste'.
Like any contradiction, sooner or later enough stress builds up and leads to slippage, whereupon the stress is reduced. It could be that we are getting close as a society to accepting higher rates of taxation for more benefits.
If that happens, we'll still have two parties, but at least the Republicans will have to shift more to the left from where they are on economic issues.
In any case, those are just my pontifications. If you glean something more concrete from the data, do share the insights.
Reply
My thoughts exactly. The aging baby boomers suuden yearning for a nanny state that would keep them safe and solvent if they obey all the laws, go to work every day and do not question the authorities.
Reply
In case of the essential basics, like food, or even medical care, it's not really an unnatural viewpoint for a wealthy society. The worry is the unintended consequences. I am not sure what the downside of the food stamps may be, but health care is one area where one can screw things up pretty badly, and yet it's an area fewer and fewer people feel can be left in its present form, and with good reasons.
Reply
Leave a comment