Why Calls for Smaller Government Don't Attract Black Voters, Latino Voters
Posted: Monday, February 08, 2010
by Mogama
http://www.mogama.info
Reminiscent of the late iconic American President Reagan, many of my political friends say things like "Government is the problem". They decry "Big Government", and activists like Gov. Sarah Palin are prone to rally the Tea Party troops with, "Let's get government out of the way."
Yet these ideologues won't take their reasoning to its logical end: If government is really the problem, then the true solution is no government. Well, they don't want to go that far, because they fear anarchy worse than they fear big government.
There's little doubt when these precious Americans call for "smaller government" they assume such a scaled back version of the national regime will be more efficient. The puzzle the smaller government advocates have yet to solve is this: What functions should be stripped from big government in order to reduce it to this preferred more efficient smaller government? Should the resulting lean government be able to defend the homeland with whatever size of spending is necessary for national security? Should we keep the functions of government that build and maintain roads and bridges? How about the functions that fund the police department, the FBI, the CIA? Should we keep funding the arm of government that builds bigger and better jails?
It appears that the functions of government that little-government fans want to exterminate are those that tend to protect and cater to the poor, needy and powerless: Cut the functions of government that fund schools and college education, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, anti-discrimination laws and civil rights statutes, regulations for Wall Street, banks and businesses.
In a country bedecked with less than sanguine human relations, not to mention Wall Street shenanigans that have robbed millions of ordinary Americans, there are multitudes of us who interpret the small-government lingo with a negative twist. Descendants of slaves, victims of the Jim Crowe south, and losers to Wall Street games hear "Get government out of the way" as "Take the referees out of the game," or "Use just one official to referee the Super Bowl no linesmen, etc."
If you want to know the barefoot truth, some of us see Big Government as a good thing. Though we too would appreciate lower taxes, we'd rather pay the price of having a Big Government that's more like Big Brother, the kind that not only looks over your shoulders but also keeps the bully in check. If you've been treated like an ant, you may want the elephant watching what's left of your back. Getting government out of the way is like giving the green light to the bullies of American society (skin heads, racists, over-greedy and corrupt businesspeople, physical abusers, etc) to have their way as they please.
Black people have learned from experience that to be successful they must be super talented, super fast or very big. After all it is the fast and big black guys that dominate the basketball court and the football field. How do you expect blacks to equate "big" with "bad"? The big guy can make the dunk; not only do we want him around, we need him on our team if we're to stand a chance in this often unfair game.
Minority voters have Big Government to thank for ending slavery, outlawing segregation, allowing them to freely date and marry non-blacks, or letting an African like myself form a church of whites, blacks and browns in formerly slaves-ridden Kentucky. Black people know that without the actions of Big Government, there is no way a fellow named Barack Hussein Obama would have been voted President of the United States in November of 2008.
Do you understand? Can you see why blacks in America naturally find it difficult to see anything inherently wrong with Big Government? Unless we're speaking of few wealthy blacks and Latinos...
For the political strategist, here's a practical hint: The vast majority of black voters, brown voters, and even poor white voters are turned off by a call for smaller government. To them, "smaller government" might as well be "weaker government", a toothless government that cannot continue to level the playing field in the schools, in business, in housing, in the workplace, etc.
To attract black voters in particular, our political friends may need to start calling the federal government FAT rather than BIG. Even for black folk, Fat Government sounds kinda eerie and up to something weird. Not that black people don't like fat things and fat people, but we usually don't want them on our team.
Yet these ideologues won't take their reasoning to its logical end: If government is really the problem, then the true solution is no government. Well, they don't want to go that far, because they fear anarchy worse than they fear big government.
It appears that the functions of government that little-government fans want to exterminate are those that tend to protect and cater to the poor, needy and powerless: Cut the functions of government that fund schools and college education, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, anti-discrimination laws and civil rights statutes, regulations for Wall Street, banks and businesses.
In a country bedecked with less than sanguine human relations, not to mention Wall Street shenanigans that have robbed millions of ordinary Americans, there are multitudes of us who interpret the small-government lingo with a negative twist. Descendants of slaves, victims of the Jim Crowe south, and losers to Wall Street games hear "Get government out of the way" as "Take the referees out of the game," or "Use just one official to referee the Super Bowl no linesmen, etc."
If you want to know the barefoot truth, some of us see Big Government as a good thing. Though we too would appreciate lower taxes, we'd rather pay the price of having a Big Government that's more like Big Brother, the kind that not only looks over your shoulders but also keeps the bully in check. If you've been treated like an ant, you may want the elephant watching what's left of your back. Getting government out of the way is like giving the green light to the bullies of American society (skin heads, racists, over-greedy and corrupt businesspeople, physical abusers, etc) to have their way as they please.
Black people have learned from experience that to be successful they must be super talented, super fast or very big. After all it is the fast and big black guys that dominate the basketball court and the football field. How do you expect blacks to equate "big" with "bad"? The big guy can make the dunk; not only do we want him around, we need him on our team if we're to stand a chance in this often unfair game.
Minority voters have Big Government to thank for ending slavery, outlawing segregation, allowing them to freely date and marry non-blacks, or letting an African like myself form a church of whites, blacks and browns in formerly slaves-ridden Kentucky. Black people know that without the actions of Big Government, there is no way a fellow named Barack Hussein Obama would have been voted President of the United States in November of 2008.
Do you understand? Can you see why blacks in America naturally find it difficult to see anything inherently wrong with Big Government? Unless we're speaking of few wealthy blacks and Latinos...
For the political strategist, here's a practical hint: The vast majority of black voters, brown voters, and even poor white voters are turned off by a call for smaller government. To them, "smaller government" might as well be "weaker government", a toothless government that cannot continue to level the playing field in the schools, in business, in housing, in the workplace, etc.
To attract black voters in particular, our political friends may need to start calling the federal government FAT rather than BIG. Even for black folk, Fat Government sounds kinda eerie and up to something weird. Not that black people don't like fat things and fat people, but we usually don't want them on our team.
This Article has been viewed 910 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (9 total)Excellent article. Excellent points, put very well. I particularly liked the football analogy.Who is this article intended for? It seems that its intended audience is made up of people who do not understand why African Americans are not swayed by arguments against big government. I guess it's important for someone to explain this.You're right about the article's intended audience. Thanks, Zhana, for reading and commenting. ~mogama~
Mogama, thanks for another great article. I have mixed feelings on this issue.Even as a white male, I can fully appreciate the need for goverment to be big enough and strong enough to protect people's rights. I've been an outsider all of my life. I've never been one of the "good ole boys". I don't network, I don't play politics, and I refuse to kiss up to anyone. Therefore, such protections as Miranda rights, Habeas Corpus, and the Fifth Amendment are as important to me as they are to any black or hispanic person. As I said in a comment on one of your previous article, there are those who hold these things in contempt. They see them as a barrier to the prosecution those whom they already "know" are guilty. In reality, these things are indeed a barrier - to vigilentism, not justice. Accordingly, the federal government needs to be able to enforce them whenever state and local governments will not.The First Amendment wasn't created to protect popular speech, it was created to protect unpopular speech. Likewise, the aforementioned protection were implemented to protect minorities as well as unpopular people such as the loner, the shadow dweller, the uncouth, the nonconformist, the weird, etc. As you obviously know, these are the kinds of people who are going to be looked at with the most suspicion when a crime occurs. So I say the the more rights and the more protections the better.On the other hand, I don't like the idea of government transfer of wealth. I'm really into rights, but entitlements? ... not so much. Ironically, one of the things that made me such a proponent of rights has also made me a derider of entitlements. Unlike most of the people I went to school with, I grew up very poor. Most of my comtemporaries had parents who were financially able to make a better life for their kids than they had when they were growing up. My parents were unable to do this. They had three major strikes against them: they were older than most parents of children their kids' age, they had poor health, and they were not educated beyond elementary school. The fact that I did not have as much as most of the other kids is one thing that started me down the road to being an outsider.However, it also put me in a postion where I had to make a life for myself, if I was ever going to have one. No one was going to buy me a car, send me to college, or give me money. And make it on my own merits is basically what I did (although I must admit that I did a get a moderate amount of government assistance with my college tuituion). And I never took anything that didn't belong to me, abused credit, drank alcohol, or used illegal drugs at any stage in my life. Therefore, I have little or no sympathy for lazy people, career criminals, or those who are addicted to credit, alcohol, or drugs. And I don't like it when the government takes money away from productive people to bail out or rescue those kinds of people.It is a welcome privilege, Terry, to hear your heart and mind on this important issue. That slice of your personal story also touched my heart deeply. I guess it has something to do with my background too, but it is hard for me to imagine government devoid of assistance for the helpless, not the lazy, but those who may need temporary help to get back on their feet. The Liberian government did not have that, and I considered that a weakness, not a strength. Years ago, after migrating to the US, my wife and I used government assistance to buy food for our baby, because, though we were working at the time, our combined income was not enough to make ends meet. As soon as our income increased, we were glad to drop off the public assistance roster. Frankly, we often felt ashamed to receive welfare, but we knew it would be temporary. It would be great if churches and charitable organizations could take over this benevolent function of society, but reality has it otherwise, and that's why I think government, as an organized structure, has a role in helping the needy as well whether it be financial aid for college or temporary unemployment benefit. As for wealth transfer, I look at it this way: If it's OK for government to take our money and build bridges or defend Europe, then it must not be so bad for that same government to assist its weakest citizens with some of that wealth, unless we want to say using tax dollars to build bridges or protect foreign lands is more important than helping our own fellow citizens. Again, thanks for taking time to comment here. ~mogama~
How has our nation come to this? How has the middle class been weakened to the point of no voice while corporations, through their influence paddling, big money, and lobbying, is running the country? How did America almost go under last year because of reckless behavior in the financial markets.It all began in earnest by one individual in particular and his intense war against the impoverished and the middle class and the government programs that supported the common people, while doing everything he could to promote the wealthy and big business interests.1. In the late 1940s, he provided the FBI with names of his fellow actors whom he believed to be communist sympathizers within the motion picture industry. This witch hunt, which proved nothing but embarrassing to our country, was however a good indication of the character of the informants.2. In his position with General Electric, he . . . . wrote his own speeches, laboring diligently and daily upon his prose. . . . Eventually, the speeches became too controversial for the company's liking, and he was fired by General Electric in 1962. He formally switched to the Republican Party the same year, revealing, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."3. He opposed certain civil rights legislation, although he later reversed his opposition to voting rights and fair housing laws. He strongly denied having racist motives.4. When legislation that would become Medicare ( helping poor and middle income Americans) was introduced in 1961, he created a recording for the American Medical Association (See “Operation Coffee Cup”) warning that such legislation would mean the end of freedom in America. He said that if his listeners did not write letters to prevent it, "we will awake to find that we have socialism.”
3. He was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, he sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday". He then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks in order to crack down on the protesters. When the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in Berkeley and demanded the distribution of food to the poor, he joked, "It's just too bad we can't have an epidemic of botulism." He didn’t want to hear what the common people had to say.4. Only a short time into his administration, federal air traffic controllers went on strike, violating a regulation prohibiting government unions from striking. Declaring the situation an emergency as described in the 1947 Taft Hartley Act, he held a press conference in the White House Rose Garden, where he stated that if the air traffic controllers "do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated." Despite fear from some members of his cabinet over a potential political backlash, on August 5, he fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored his order to return to work, busting the union. According to Charles Craver, a labor law professor at George Washington University Law School, the move gave Americans a new view of he, who "sent a message to the private employer community that it would be all right to go up against the unions.” Again, workers to he were second class citizens, a scourge to free enterprise and making money.5. The minimum wage remained the same during the tenure of his administration.6. He implemented policies based on supply-side economics and advocated a classical liberal and laissez-faire philosophy (for big business) seeking to stimulate the economy with large, across-the-board tax cuts. Citing the economic theories of Arthur Laffer, he promoted the proposed tax cuts as potentially stimulating the economy enough to expand the tax base, offsetting the revenue loss due to reduced rates of taxation, a theory that entered political discussion as the Laffer curve. Heomics was the subject of debate with supporters pointing to improvements in certain key economic indicators as evidence of success, and critics pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt. His policy of "peace through strength" (also described as "firm but fair") resulted in a record peacetime defense buildup including a 40% real increase in defense spending between 1981 and 1985. (Budget deficits and increased military spending insured reduced social benefits for the common people, a known tactic for those who support big business and Wall Street).6. His policies proposed that economic growth would occur when marginal tax rates were low enough to spur investment, which would then lead to increased economic growth, higher employment and wages. Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor. Questions arose whether his policies benefited the wealthy more than those living in poverty, and many poor and minority citizens viewed him as indifferent to their struggles.7. Following his less-government intervention views, he cut the budgets of non-military programs including Medicaid, food stamps, federal education programs and the EPA. He protected entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, however, his administration attempted to purge many people with alleged disabilities from the Social Security disability rolls.8. The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and Loan crisis. It is also suggested, by a minority of heomics critics, that the policies partially influenced the stock market crash of 1987, but there is no consensus regarding a single source for the crash. In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion.As a result of his legacy, Wall Street, banks and security firms have been regulated less and less over the years. So much so that regulations, it was believed, became unnecessary because the markets knew intuitively what they were doing. The Las Vegas effect that developed infected even the middle class with their amateur day traders and portfolio connoisseurs, while the real gamblers only became more wealthy. But it was a house of cards originally built by him.Now, things have gone too far to back out. Easy credit is being again hyped even by the government because the economy cannot function without it. We’re hooked. This is where we are, and it stands to reason that it can’t continue this way. Things have gone way over the top since he deserted the common man. Just look at middles class wages, and the percentage of wealth held by the top tier of the population.We might hold off judgment day for awhile, we can still borrow a lot of money, but eventually we will have to face the truth about our status in the world, which is becoming increasingly dicey with many jobs going to more competitive countries. And right now, that status, which relies almost solely on credit, is under the gun to the point that we are paralyzed in congress to do anything about it, other than throw more borrowed money at the problem. Without borrowed money, our economy would surely crash unlike anything we have ever seen.Thank you, Mr. Ronald Reagan.Lots of historical education in your thorough comment. I learned a lot. Thanks for posting here. ~mogama~
The Constitution clearly states the limits of the central government's powers. Those powers not specifically spelle dout remain with the States. In it's current form the Federal government has way over stepped it's constiotutional powers. Do you advocate disolution of the document? Federl programs of the 1960's destroyed the black american family.Thanks, Jack, for your input. If federal programs destroyed the black family, then will destroying those programs fix the black family? I wish it were that simple and simplistic... ~mogama~
big government does usually mean more help to the poor, since Obama's been in office my tenants have got their rent paid by the government more then they use to,it use to be 70pct government and 30pct tenant, not anymore its almos 100% govt. The problem is that they take advantage they have massive amounts of kids(10 in a house) because they get paid more in benefits-So big government equals= big familys, the brothers and sisters don't know their dads cause they are all different and this is all because they get a bigger check-- its just crazyThanks, Rob, for commenting. ~mogama~
Mogama,I too thought this was an excellent article! It gives insights that many are not aware of. I have used many of the same aspects you have used. But I must admit that the football analogy was new to me.Thanks for putting this together and thoughtfully addressing others' comments.KevinI appreciate your comment, Kevin. Thanks for posting. ~mogama~
Post-Bellum Federal Government is traditionally the friend and protector of Blacks specifically, and minorities in general. Government, as the majority in the U.S. generally don't comprehend, was designed by Whites to benefit Whites. Of course Whites don't see this, because they are part of it and expect their interests will come first (the "entitlement" Mr. Mitchell alluded to). It's like asking a fish, "How do you find the water?" Now that the tide is turning, and Government is looking after minorities as well, Whites don't like it. "Smaller government!" they shout. What they mean is, "We want things the way they used to be."
Minorities tend to see government as useful, where Whites tend to see government as interfering busy bodies. I can see both sides of the issues, that when I need my civil rights protected, I expect the government to be stand behind me.Good article Mogama.- GYou know, G, you expressed the thinking on both sides very brilliantly. Thanks for your input, my friend. ~mogama~
Excellent article. I've been studying for my PTCB (pharmacy) exam for the past couple of weeks and have been out of the loop, so to speak. Reading this article reminded me I shouldn't stay away so long!You make great points, and I like the idea of calling the government FAT. As long as we don't call it PHAT . . .Hi there, Michael. I wish you pass your PHAT exam with flying colors! Thanks for the giggles. ~mogama~
yes very muchThanks, Moshe, for commenting. ~mogama~
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.