In his State of the Union address a little over 13 years ago, Bill Clinton proclaimed "the era of big government" was over. After a year of butting heads with the new Republican majority in Congress, President Clinton signaled a willingness to change course and acknowledge the message voters sent in the 1994 mid-term elections: time to trim the sails of Washington's ambitions.
Yet when Barack Obama addressed his first joint session of Congress earlier this year, many believed big government was back. Economic turmoil, coupled with the new power trifecta in Washington--Democratic control of the House, Senate and presidency for the first time since 1993--breathed new life into Leviathan's lungs. The lack of aggressive remedies in Washington, the new president complained, became an "excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy." And during the Bush years, he asserted, "regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit."
Democrats' resurgence coupled with economic distress meant nothing was safe from Washington's reach. Banks, energy companies, health care, the automobile industry and even CEO pay to name a few, would now come under the control of White House czars and activist lawmakers in Congress. "Move fast," Democratic operatives warned. A good crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
It took about two years for the curtain to fall on Bill Clinton's era of big government. Barack Obama's may have ended sooner. A growing body of evidence supports this contention.
Voter cynicism about the consequences of Washington on steroids is one example. A new survey
by Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, widely reported by the media last week, underscores this point. When asked "who" was helped most by recent government economic policies, a majority said "large banks" (62 percent) and "Wall Street investment companies" (54 percent). Only 10 percent responded "my family/myself."
Some say these data suggest the government should do even more. "Politically," The New York Times wrote, "the poll does a nice job of capturing one of the central challenges for the White House and Democrats in Congress. Voters do not think elected officials have done enough to mitigate the damage from the recession."
This assessment misses the point. It's not that they haven't done enough. They've done too much--or at least the wrong things. Independent voters, who supported Obama in 2008, are the best indicators here. The NBC/Wall Street Journal survey regularly asks a similar question: "Should the government do more/Does it do too much?" In February 2009, independents answered, "do more" by a slim 46 percent to 44 percent margin. By September 2009, those desiring "more government" had slipped to a 21-point deficit (35 percent to 56 percent).
Beliefs about regulation of business and industry are also moving in an unexpected direction. Given the financial meltdown and charges that regulators were asleep at the switch, you might expect voters to support more rather than less government intervention. Surprisingly, American attitudes, especially among swing voters, have shifted towards less intervention. Last September, for example, on the eve of the economic collapse, 38 percent of independents responded there was too much regulation of business and industry. One year later, those numbers have risen to 50 percent.
|
