Jonah is frustrated that Democrats argue that as-much-government-as-we-can-get is the alternative to limited government:
“You see, we believe that ‘We’re all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘You’re on your own.’”
According to this, and countless other formulations, the choice is binary. Large, ambitious, government action or dystopian anarchy. It’s as if the only thing keeping us from raping and pillaging defenseless widows is the government.
Yes. The idea that government is too big seems to be met with the retort, "I suppose you'd love living in Somalia where there's no government." (Yes, I've heard that.)
I'm fine with the idea that we need to build roads together, defend our nation, teach our children, and even enforce basic safety and cleanliness standards in our factories.
But why does that consensus have to expand into giving government the power to tell us where we can put up basketball nets on our own property and the power to review the lunches we pack for our children?
It's difficult to go about your day without violating some of the multiplying laws that make us go forward "together."
Will has thoughts on what together means for progressives who get to tell us what direction "forward" is.
Sure, going together forward sounds fine in theory. But in practice, it might not work out as gloriously as you think. Who decides the direction? Who bangs the drum to keep us in time? And who rows?
Face it, our government is just too damned big. I don't trust any party to exercise that much power wisely. Eyes filled with hate are a survival mechanism, no?
Do we have the good sense to control our government this November?
