What's the conceptual boundry between big government and intrusive government? 

On the one hand, there's government of large expensive programs that require a sizeable tax base.  On the other hand, there's government that legislates its way to your kitchen table, your  television, your bedroom.  When conservatives say that they're opposed to government interfering with individual freedom, one would think that they meant Intrusive Government (if I may capitalize).  But this is belied by the theocratic agenda of social conservatism.  What they are opposed to, then, is Big Government, and here, its tendentious to say that the issue is 'intrusion into the lives of citizens.'

Of course, the boundary isn't so clean, so this oversimplifies considerably.  Still, I suspect that they've managed to keep the Goldwaterite Western Conservatives and the Bible Belt social conservatives in the same camp by conflating the two ideas.   

Bush has brought us into the era of Big, Stupid Government.

It's NOT the govt, stupid -- it's the stupid Bush govt.

I have long argued (at least with myself), that the myth of small government is just that, a myth. Neither party is vested in creating a smaller government, thereby, reducing their political power and influence on Americans.

The only real differences between the parties is: (a) The Priorities of Government and (b) How to Fund It.

The Repubs believe in the myth of tax cuts and spend, delaying the pain until some far off disaster forces them to deal with it.

The Dems believe in creating the revenues as much as possible, up front (with tax increases) until they get thrown out of office by the tax cut and spend Republicans.

But smaller government - that is simply not going to happen in any significant manner.

As for the fine line the Republicans have walked between financial and social intrusiveness, this too may become another widening crack, in the wall of solididarity. Things simply seem to be impoding amoungst the Republican bases right now. It will be interesting to see all the consequences of their recklessness over the past five years.

Also, does Matthew really think that Susan Collins is "hard right" on economic policy?  He seems to imply that Republicans like her are hard right on economic policy, but moderate on social policy, whereas the Republican base is hard right on social policy but moderate on economic policy.  But I have my doubts that she is "hard right" on economic policy.

 If you did have a progressive president, there's no longer a particularly large amount of popular resistance to expanding the activist state. Even most Republicans don't especially care about small government.

But do you really believe that they ever did?! It has always struck me as strange that there doesn't seem to be more of a place for a kind of Painean libertarianism within progressive politics.  "That government is best which governs least." seems to generally be dismissed as inimicable to the principles guiding an "activist state". But why should it be? Such a progressivism would seek to fight moribund, overreaching bureaucracies by promoting smart, effective, local, self-knowledgable government.  

Bryan

Do you think that there is a defference between Republican and Democratic officeholders and their related activists and voters?  Large government is a bit like the federal and trade deficits they seem like bad things but no one votes because of them.  Republican Americans may want lower taxes and the right to tell all of us how to pray and who to have sex with but they want low cost land and water out west and various business subsidies.  

Democratic voters might be willing to pay somemore in taxes to help the less fortunate and they are certainly willing to tell Americans how to live but about cigarettes, and the environment and issues of race.  However Democrats also like to have their social programs paid for by groups they are not as fond of, landlords, "the rich" and white ethnics.

Daniel:

Do you think that there is a difference between Republican and Democratic officeholders and their related activists and voters?

Yes, unequivically. That's why I believe the true differences between the parties, and there supporters is between the priorities each see government engaged in, on behalf of the stakeholders. In other words, the Republicans mantra about 'smaller goverment' is really an unworkable idea, when it comes to actual governance. And I think they are now finding that out.

The thing differentiates the two parties, is both the 'what', and 'how', they want to impact the lives of Americans. Your brief summary of those differences are a good place to start, but others could be added. The conservatives want as pure a market-based approach as possible, where as progressives believe there is a legitimate place for government involvement, for protections of workers, the environment and the general populace. But each of these focuses (by conservatives and progressives) require an activist government to achieve the end goals.

One of the things I hope the Democrats beginning doing next year, during the mid-terms, is to de-bunk the myth of small government, and turn the debate into one of PRIORITIES of government. One of the easiest differences in priorities will be between the priorities of the conservatives to address the needs of corporate America, whereas the progressives address the needs of individual Americans. That discussion alone will appeal to those Americans who are now feeling they are much more on their own, and would like to feel like someone is working on their behalf.

Big/little government. It simply isn't the defining factor between parties any longer. The Republicans have done a great job of demonstrating that political reality.

<i>If you did have a progressive president, there's no longer a particularly large amount of popular resistance to expanding the activist state. Even most Republicans don't especially care about small government.</i>

If true, then great, Democratic nominees will not have to worry about being smeared as the tax and spend party of big government.

Do you believe that? 

Ellen:

To do deals like NAFTA, CAFTA and so on. To create tax breaks and tax loopholes. To seat judicial nominees on the courts that are pro-business. And to do all of those things they have to be activist in catering to their various bases, to stay in power. And what they are finding now, in trying to identify cuts that are acceptable to enough voters to keep them in power, it is very, very difficult. By default, Americans like many of the programs the government offers, and in order to stay in power, they have little 'cutting' they can actually do.

While they may or may not directly demand an 'enlarged' government to achieve a market-based economy, the issues they deal with to remain in power, keeps them from actually shrinking the size of government. That's why I maintain, it is all about the priorities, and not the size, of government.

Ellen:

Allow me to modify this a bit. The business-base of the Republican party would certainly see no reason for a larger government. In fact, they would like a smaller, less intrusive government. But the Republicans cannot get elected into power, nor can they stay in power, with just that base. The bottom line is Americans like to varying degrees, the programs they receive from the government. In attempting to find consensus, in what to cut, while still garning enough votes to remain in power, has proved extraordinaily difficult. Hence, they have increased the size of government, reaching out to other parts of their base.

In the end, pure ideology, such as smaller government, rarely, if ever works in the real world.

.  .  . markets require government .  .  .  .  Daniel A. Greenbaum

No one would disagree with that assertion.  The question though is whether markets require an "activist government."   

It seems to me that Bryan is confusing an "activist government" with an "activist political party"  -- whatever the latter may be.  I think Norquist would tell you that all that's required of government in a market based economy is a couple of tanks and a S.W.A.T. team to enforce the judges' contract law decisions.

Purple State,
You are right in that is what the voters want.  The problem is the voters basically have no clue what government actually spends money on and think that they can have tax cuts and all the things they want becasue they just need to eliminate "waste, fraud, abuse and needless pork"  The problem is that the "W,F,A and Pork" add up to a rounding error on a rounding error on the total budget and there is no way to give the voters what they want without raising taxes, let alone cutting them.
Basically Republicans promise them a free lunch and they vote for it over seriously facing what the government they want costs.

The problem is the voters basically have no clue what government actually spends money on

EWK, no one has any clue. . . not even the legislators who pass the spending bills. Remember what Rep. Conyers said in Farenheit 9/11 about whether anyone in Congress actually reads bills before voting on them?

I'm not convinced that government couldn't be made significantly more efficient (and even a rounding error on a trillion-plus budget is a lot of dollars). But how can anyone tell? It would require a huge project to review every dollar spent by the federal government. But maybe we need that project? Maybe the Democrats could campaign on getting such a project organized and underway?

Norquist always stuns with me with what he does not know about markets.  Would you want to enter into millions of dollars of futures contracts without an activist goverment regulating the system of transactions?   We all take for granted certain legal systems because we live with a legal system that has been around for over 400 years.  

There is also encouraging people to take on more risk and responsibilty.  I agree with some that we are too dependent on goverment to do for us in the first instance.  However, unless we have a safety net who will take the risk?

Don't be so sure, Matt. Conservative economic policies, regardless of their popularity, are the way to go for the simple reason that they create a healthy economy, and thus make whichever party is pushing it popular. I cite Bill Clinton as the best example.

Liberal economic policies result in recession, and however popular they poll, whoever brings those policies about is going to get fired by the voters in short order.

I know that futures are a form of derivative but I was not thinking about the unregulated derivative markets but the exchange traded futures markets.  To the extent that they rest on contracts standing behind them is the governmental system ready to help enforce the contracts.  As for the much larger derivative markets I agree that there is no goverment behind them and if I understand Greenspan and grew there is concern about them.