The Party of Small Government?

My father was a staunch Repub­lican. As a kid, I asked him what the difference was between the two parties and I remember his answer. He told me that “Republicans were for small government and wanted to make everyone rich”. As I got older, I realized how hollow his as­sertions were.

I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats and over the last 40 years, have increasingly sup­ported progressive politicians and policies. I have done so because I honestly believe in the Preamble to the Constitution. It takes collec­tive effort to establish and maintain a free, just, safe, equitable society for all of our citizens. This belief doesn’t make me a “socialist”. It means that I’m sociable.

The idea of “small government” and the issue of government intru­sion are things I have paid close at­tention to and I feel compelled to call out the “party of small govern­ment” for their ongoing intrusions of the last many years.

Republicans are out of step with the majority of Americans on a growing number of issues. Rather than reflect on this fact, they seem compelled to impose their beliefs by employing a number of anti-de­mocracy measures. A short list in­cludes:

• Manipulating the outcome of elections by gerrymander­ing voting districts, limiting access to voter registration offices and shutting down polling places, particularly in communities where the ma­jority of voters are people of color.
• Stripping away a woman’s right to make healthcare deci­sions about her own body.
• Denying parents the right to seek appropriate medical treatment for their child, so much so that some families are fleeing to states where they are free to seek the care they think best for their child.
• Banning books and trying to ban words and ideas like cli­mate change, transgenderism, diversity, equity & inclusion, sexual identity and social jus­tice.
• The highly partisan Supreme Court decision that guts the concept of governmen­tal checks and balances and grants unwarranted power by placing the President above the law.

These examples of “small gov­ernment” Republicanism have nothing to do with sound economic policy or addressing any of the big­ger challenges we face as a nation.

Finally, there’s Project 2025. A document from the Heritage Foundation designed to reshape our government by, among other things, firing civil servants from governmental regulatory agencies if they don’t pledge loyalty to the President. Replacements will be party loyalists who will be put into positions of authority not because they have expert qualifications, but because they are political sy­cophants who will work to enact the President’s policies across the board, even at the expense and wellbeing of the nation as a whole. Project 2025 calls for the Depart­ment of Justice to be placed under the total control of the President. If implemented, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be rolled back and the department of Educa­tion will be abolished. Project 2025 will impose an extreme agenda on the country and the proof of that is amplified in a statement that Kevin Roberts, the President of the Heri­tage Foundation, gave in an inter­view published on July 2nd and carried by multiple news outlets. “We’re in the process of taking this country back”, Roberts said. “ We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless, if the left allows it to be.” So, as long as those who disagree with Project 2025 man­dates don’t resist, or remain quiet, blood won’t be spilled? I guess the gloves are off. “If you oppose us, things will get violent and it’ll be your fault”.

We have a presidential candidate who has said that he will demand “loyalty” if he is elected in Novem­ber. Not loyalty to the Constitution or the concept of the separation of powers or the concept of the peace­ful transfer of power. Not loyalty to the American people or to our founding ideas, but loyalty to him­self. One should hear the alarm bells ringing when these comments are taken together with the doctri­nal framework of Project 2025.

Anyone who believes in the axi­om that we must learn from histo­ry, should be listening because an honest look back at history sug­gests that we are on a perilously slippery slope. Be wary of one who is placed above the law by the deci­sion of a partisan court. Believe the one who talks openly about impos­ing loyalty oaths and has said that he will take retribution on political rivals. Take the one who threatens to abandon geopolitical alliances that have helped us avoid a world war for the past 80 years seriously. Such a person will neither keep us safe or be respected on the world stage. The smarmy behavior of a candidate who cozies up to des­potic leaders and for whom every­thing is transactional and self-serv­ing won’t serve the interests of the American people. Basic human de­cency should tell us that one who, on a daily basis, disrespects wom­en, minorities, veterans, foreign allies, our public institutions and the rule of law isn’t fit to lead. His character qualities will never, ever make America great again. History has lessons to teach us about put­ting such a person into a position of power. Hopefully, we are listening because, if not, the result won’t be “small government”.