The Mythos of Change and Big Government in America

Challenging the Notion that Economic and Social Advancement Requires a Big Government

Today, one of my progressively-minded academic peers was asked to defend his support of big government. "Society has changed significantly since the signing of the Constitution," he remarked. "The Founding Fathers never imagined how large and complex our nation would become, and we need a large government to help manage the needs of a large and complex society." His sophistry continued, "Events that led us to the necessary growth of government include: the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, World Wars, Iron Curtain, Recession, Information Technology boom, and 9/11, just to name a few. These events could only be addressed with a very large government, and have even made us realize that government should be even larger to help protect us from repeat incidents."

Alas, Stalin would be proud.

I understand that many believe that economic and social evolution mandated the emergence of big government in the US, and that the state has enlarged its scope of influence over time in relative proportion to increasing social complexities. But, think about it for a moment. On what basis is the belief that this alleged dynamic symbiosis between big government and complex society known to be true, or more importantly, productive? I understand that people believe it, but I don't understand why they believe it.

We know that government started growing in the 30's, but how do we know that growth was essential to the health of the nation? How do we know that progress would not have still occurred in the absence of a big government? Further, how do we know that big government did not actually slow progress and weaken our nation? What evidence exists to support the assumption that our nation is better off with a big government, and is it possible that big government has done irreparable harm to our country?

Perhaps, one would argue that no evidence exists to the contrary, that our nation has never weathered periods of precipitous change in the absence of a big government, to which I would earnestly object. Was America significantly more complex in 1930, than it was in 1790? Indeed, it was infinitely more complex in 1930. Was social and economic progress made in that 140 year period prior to 1930? Without a doubt, it was.

It is true that we are more complex in 2010 than we were in 1930. But at the same time, we were more complex in 1930 than we were in 1790. Yet, the social complexities and industrial quickening that characterized the 1800's were all managed with a very small government that consumed less than 5% of GDP.

Some argue that the depression forced the growth of government in the 1930's. But, they fail to remember the depression of 1873, which was a major global economic crisis that America navigated with a very small government that never exceeded 5% of GDP. Moreover, the 1873 depression ended in 1879, and was about 5 years shorter than Roosevelt's depression of the 1930's. (I might point out that Roosevelt's depression was managed by a big government, and lasted significantly longer.)

Some cite the industrial revolution as an impetus for bigger government. But does that really makes sense, considering the industrial revolution ended in 1850, eighty years prior to the government's leap toward societal dominance beginning in 1930?

To say that contemporary events are somehow special and different from the historical events of our forefathers, different to the point that they require the adoption of a big government with which to manage them, is an odd notion to me. Although I would never personally suggest this, others might even be inclined to label such a belief as a bit arrogant. Truly, each generation of people view the historical events of their lives, and of the decades preceding their lives, as unique and of greater importance than the more distant events of previous centuries. But in reality, the invention of the wheel had no greater impact on the Neanderthals than did the invention of the steam engine on the Early Modernists. The steam engine had no greater impact on the Early Modernists than did the invention of the microchip on Generation X. The invention of the microchip may feel more momentous in its impact on society because we have personally seen its influence on our nation, our economy, and our culture. But in reality, the wheel, the steam engine and the microchip have all impacted their respective societies equally, and the introduction of one into historical currents required no greater scope of bureaucratic governance than did the other.

So, why do people believe that economic and social advancement and growth is predicated on the existence of big government? What evidence exists that leads one to believe that big government is necessary now, but was unnecessary in 1790 when the Constitution was signed?

Well, no one will ever be able to provide such evidence, because it does not exist. And although there is a much more compelling body of evidence to support a small government, the system will go on perpetuating the false idea that big government is necessary to manage the nation's growth and change, which is a load of malarkey.