[pjc50]

The weird thing is how conservatives get to play both the "federal government is inherently evil" and "look at all the stuff we're doing with our power over the federal government" cards at the same time, often for the same events.

[ryandvm]

As always, Republicans are their own best argument for limited federal government.

[roenxi]

Is it weird to be consistent? The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power.

The argument never was nor will be that [this thing] is bad when [the wrong people] do it; the argument is that [this thing] is bad. There isn't an expectation that a right wing government will somehow transcend the realities of government. The ideal social contract with the politicians - from the liberal part of the right wing - is that they do whatever it is that motivates them to take on the job and that is tolerated to some extent - but in exchange they shrink the size and scope of the government bureaucracy.

Obviously the ideal is a distant dream at this point, but the principle lingers. It is the only realistic option.

[const_cast]

> The "federal government is inherently evil" is a principle that doesn't magically go away when small-government people get in to power.

In my experience it’s exactly this. The principle vanishes quickly, because none of those “small government” people were really so. The primary small government faction in the US is conservatives. They’ve been, for a few decades now, VERY large government. Bordering on fascist.

They just lie, because it’s easy and none of their constituents care. You have better odds of hell freezing over than conservative constituencies holding their representatives accountable. When you’re in that situation, you’d be stupid not to lie.

To expand on this, shrinking the bureaucracy isn’t shrinking the government. Because, if you had read the agenda in project 2025, you’d know that the intention is to then concentrate those powers in the president.

That’s not smaller gov, that’s bigger. You’re creating a monarch.

[tastyface]

I’m not sure why this comment was killed. Completely accurate assessment. Republicans are only “small government” until states try to do something they don’t like. (Support trans athletes or undocumented immigrants? Have fun getting all your federal funding pulled.) And the monarchy of the executive is something they’ve been eagerly proselytizing for years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

[const_cast]

It’s unpopular because conservatives hate it when you tell them what their representatives are doing. Again, they’re allergic to accountability!

To this day, millions deny the impact of project 2025. Like it’s some made up liberal strawman.

Guys, half the writers are in his cabinet. He’s following it to a tee. I don’t think we could’ve asked for a more perfect establishment Republican if we tried.

They’re not some little guys dismantling the system. They ARE the system.

[tastyface]

Yep: https://www.project2025.observer/

[pwatsonwailes]

Not mutually exclusive. "We're incredibly powerful and government is evil" and "we're absolutely going to use governmental power now we have it to fuck shit up that we don't like", is totally a position those in government can take.

The key is in the idea of governance and who's governing. Any and all governance which has happened by those the people in power don't like (basically the other team) is what is labelled bad.

The only question is, ultimately, is their governance sane and sensible? From the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

And no. No it isn't.

[milesrout]

What a stupid strawman. The claim is "the government is too powerful, that power is easily abused, it wastes your money on pointless 'woke' things, and we are cancelling it all".

[bmicraft]

If they're so concerned about abuse, why are they abusing it more than anybody else?