I know, I know it sounds like an oxymoron. But since the 1980s, Democrats have been struggling with the Republican frame of "Big Government Liberalism". To say they've been ineffective would be an understatement. Dem responses have ranged from sepia-toned New Deal references to wildly varying posturing. However, besides DLC-style selling out, there has never been a really good attempt to understand the possible reasons that liberals might want to take another look at some traditionally "conservative" ideas. I know this is heresy, but I trust the group here so I'd like to put forth something like that.
The old axiom goes "Conservatives say government is the problem and then prove it." Anyone who doubted that has had a difficult time under George W. Bush. But the problem is, it's difficult to argue the converse of that. The fact that a strong central government can be abused by a conservative doesn't exactly argue in favor of a strong central government. Ironically, by screwing up completely, people like Bush weaken Americans' faith in the government as an institution-- exactly what they wanted anyway.
Bush is a particularly scary example of this. We have seen government powers grow tremendously in the last five years. We've seen the Supreme Court claim that corporations can seize private property and that civilians can be held indefinitely without representation, or even charges. We've seen the Majority Leader place himself outside investigation for ethics charges. We've seen the majority party conduct many, many tiny manuevers to seriously weaken the minority in historically unprecedented ways. We've seen the government claim to have the right to invade our bedrooms, tell us who we can marry, what we can do with our bodies, what kind of families are "correct". We've seen government spending that is literally unparalleled in American history. We've seen irresponsibile tax cuts conspiring with war profiteering and bloated pork to create the largest deficit in American history.
In short, we are living in an unprecedented era of Big Government. The only difference between Republican big government and Democrat big government is that the Dems worried about what would happen to the budget. Currently, the interest on the deficit is the third largest government expenditure. That's money basically thrown away-- it provides no services, no incentives, nothing. It's just paying for money we've borrowed. And as we continue to run budget deficits, the principle on that interest goes higher. As a child of the 1980s, I'm ALREADY paying much of my taxes for government spending that occured when I was like 4. As time goes on though, as I get older, more and more of my paycheck and taxes are going to go toward these ballooning national interest payments.
Interestingly, the current crop of Republican leaders rose to power on the strength of a few ideas meant to prevent exactly this situation (and, not coincidentally, help out their interest group: rich white guys). But some of those old 1990s GOP ideas are starting to look mighty fine as we deal with a huge government that a) doesn't give a fuck about the deficit, and b) will do anything to reduce the "burden" on the rich.
Take a balanced budget amendment, for example. In the 90s, with Dems in control of EVERYTHING, the left opposed it. They said it would lead to people choosing tax cuts over needed services, and it would be unservicable. Of course, during those days the Dems controlled everything, and I have to say I bet a lot of it had to do with distribution of Democratic spending priorities and Democratic pork projects. But after years of unchecked Republican rule, I have to say a balanced budget amendment sounds like a DAMN good idea. Do you think that if a deficit WASN'T an option, people would choose War in Iraq rather than Medicare? Would people choose tax cuts for the rich instead of their Social Security checks? I really doubt it. At this point, nobody has to choose, which makes people think that we can just throw around billions for war, tax cuts, Katrina relief, Medicare reform, etc... I think it's time that we start forcing Washington pols to balance the budget every year, whether it means new taxes or cuts in pork. They know what's good for them; they won't build Alaskan bridges to nowhere if it means cutting Social Security and making their constituents go ballistic.
Another good idea, IMHO, is the idea of block grants. These were also opposed by the Left, understandably because they contained no way to really guarantee the money was being spent effectively on what it was supposed to be spent on. But as it stands, the idiotic implementation of Bush's big Federal programs (No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit) have been horribly underfunded, ill-managed, and riddled with special-interest giveaways. I'd rather let MA, IL, NY, CA, and other Democratic states manage their own Prescription Drug money than let it become just another giveaway to Merck and Pfizer. Wouldn't you?
And finally, most controversially, is a flat tax. I know, it's anathema. And I know it's anathema for a good reason. But I think it may have important policy AND political benefits to us; ones that reduce its regressiveness over time. This is more realpolitik than the others, but I think it works. There are perennial Republican efforts to pass a flat tax; it plays well to the libertarians, it sounds good, and they can rely on the Dems to kill it. But what if, just once, we didn't. What if we let a few Dems like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman off the rance in order to vote for it? Well, immediately the USA becomes WAY more regressive, sure, but it also gets a lot more income. That's important as we start approaching this looming budget explosion connected to aging Boomers using HHS services. Suddenly we're able to afford it. And what ultimately happens is that rich and poor people pay more taxes while the middle class goes down.
Then, at the next Presidential election, our Democratic nominee takes on the evil, regressive Republican tax and runs on a... tax cut. So we have a progressive candidate, running on a progressive platform, who can legitimately campaign on a popular tax cut, but we'll have a much higher top rate for the wealthy. The GOP would scream about it (and it's a complicated scheme without a guarantee of success), but it's a damn good way to bolster the budget for a bit. And, honestly, if worst comes to worst, wouldn't you sacrifice the progressive income tax to save our social safety net? I have to say, I would...