Bigger Government, Better Government, What’s the Answer?

The debate over the effectiveness of bigger government recently came up in my senior thesis course.  It doesn’t appear to be a debate between the effectiveness of an authoritarian form of government contrasted with a liberal democracy, but about the extensiveness that the federal government takes into rights, civil liberties, and economic matters.

I think the best manner to answer this question is with a “yes” and “no”. First, the United State’s Constitution seeks to defend the rights and liberties of the people. More often than not, in the course of civil liberties and rights violations, state governments have infringed on the rights of individuals. This has resulted in federal government (via the Supreme Court) defending individual liberties against state governments. I mention this because the rhetoric surrounding this power issue often boils down to the federal government versus the States.

When addressing the issue of foreign affairs, I think it’s important to have a strong executive who is able to act swiftly and effectively without being bogged down by Congress. It is the President’s duty and privilege to make and enforce treaties; Hamilton argues that he is the sole organ of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations. Other than the clauses specifically limiting the powers of the executive, they should be interpreted broadly as to how the President will carry out his task as Commander in Chief. In Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argues, “[T]he circumstances that endanger the safety of a nation are infinite: and for this reason, no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.”

When Smaller Is Better

Simultaneously, I must argue that limited government is better for allowing the above mentioned institutions flourish. The constitution places limitation on the powers vested in each branch of government to avoid tyranny. There are clear separations of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, which also have checks and balances on one another. This does not allow power or energy that could easily result in a tyrannical form of government to concentrate in one of these branches.

While these institutions, set in place by the Constitution, limit the reach and power of government, they predominately sought to expand the power of the federal government. This is what I understand to be “bigger government”. Institutions can do a great job of increasing but also setting limitations on power. However, local communities must also be given a sense of autonomy with the “mediating institutions” of society. For example, the Church and freedom of religion in local communities should be protected and encouraged. Arguments have been made that the institution of marriage itself should be protected, as an institution from fears that it may disappear.

This is where local governments might be better equipped to deal with these institutions.