Americans' Belief That Gov't Is Too Powerful At Record Level

[Os Cangaceiros]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164591/americans-belief-gov-powerful-record-level.aspx What, if any, implications does this have, in this board's opinion?

[Kush Brannigan]

This is a good thing, but there are a few problems.

First of all, many Americans, when they say the government is too powerful, they only mean "well uhh, they shouldn't regulate business, too much bureaucracy blah blah blah". Just because people think the government is too powerful doesn't mean these people have any idea what they're talking about unfortunately. The United States is a country of apathy. Between the communists and the right wing extremists are the drooling tv-watchers. So I don't think it has many implications but it is certainly a good thing at least.

[tachosomoza]

The bad thing is that Americans who believe that the government is too powerful tend to be easily taken in and swayed into going against class interests by right wing libertarian capitalist rhetoric.

[Red_Banner]

Yeah, but many think it is "too powerful" only to a point.


They don't seem to mind corporations that control the government.

Then they also want the government to state sponser religion and infringe on LGBT rights.

[ВАЛТЕР]

This is the same country where people think that Sweden is socialist...so this doesn't really mean much sadly.

They know something is wrong, they just can't put their finger on it due to a lack of class consciousness, and outright anticommunism that is a product of 70+ years of terrifying the population with anything that is even remotely red.

[Taters]

This is a good thing, but there are a few problems.

First of all, many Americans, when they say the government is too powerful, they only mean "well uhh, they shouldn't regulate business, too much bureaucracy blah blah blah". Just because people think the government is too powerful doesn't mean these people have any idea what they're talking about unfortunately

Well, alarm about the scope of government power has grown in light of the revelations of PRISM and other NSA misdeeds and so on. In general, there's a growing realization that they aren't going to scale back on these programs; just the opposite, they'll keep expanding surveillance.

Of course, this is fertile ground for libertarians and other "small government" types, not so much the left.

[tachosomoza]

This is the same country where people think that Sweden is socialist..

They also think Obama is communist, that communism is government control of every aspect of the citizenry's life and can't differentiate between Karl Marx and Mark Wahlberg, AKA Marky Mark.

[cliffhanger]

People are taught that Marxism means genocide and bureaucracy, which rules out radicalism, except for a small fringe that is mostly liberal and tails the Democrats anyway. The social-democratic/reformist left is then pummeled daily by anti-labour activities, divisions between races and genders, and co-opted by the mainstream two party system which forces debate towards the median white "independent" voter. That's all compounded by an incredible ideological apparatus that focuses debate on things the rich either care a lot about (taxes, debt, etc.) or don't really care at all about (abortion, gay marriage). Once that's done, the world is still pretty fucked up, so people look around for solutions that the system offers them. Most people just stop voting and focus on their own problems, or they vote in an automatic way for one of the two major parties without giving it much thought. People who get socially/politically active tend to get involved with things that solve specific problems they see in the world, like gun control, or pro-life, or pro-choice, sorts of things, things that sort of reflect their aspirations for themselves. Almost all of those people are really angry at systems of power they see as forcing bad things on the world, but they can't express it in a coherent way, so they become libertarians or something, or they think Bush blew up the World Trade Center or something. And that path usually doesn't fix their problems so they get burned out and move on to something else.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Last night I was sitting around with a friend of mine, and I could hear a helicopter flying overhead. Jokingly I raised my fist up and said "Goddamn government". My friend laughed and said "yeah, I hate the government"...then added, half-jokingly, "Actually government, if you're listening, I don't HATE you, I just don't like you very much."

[Os Cangaceiros]

Obviously the reasons why Americans think the state is too powerful vary according to one's political allegiances, though...some may feel it's too powerful because of the IRS, while others may feel it's too powerful because of domestic spying, or aggressive overseas activities, etc. The feeling on this board when the topic of the USA's disillusionment with it's government seems to be that Americans will cry and flail around like the overgrown babies that they are, and that'll be the end of it (besides the ones who become politically active in the far right). No hope for the brainwashed bubbas round here...

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Thank galt I've stocked so much ammo!

The concept that Obama is socialist is just so off the richter scale in terms of absurdity that I'm surprised that it even exists in modern discourse without everyone in a 100 meter radius laughing their heads off at whoever brings it up. Austrian nuttery at it's finest.

Regulation!? REGULATION!? SOCIALLISMMMMM! SOCIALISMMMM! WEEE-AAAW WEEE-AAAW WEE-AWW.

[Popular Front of Judea]

You will note that the question is open ended. The people polled are not asked "in what way is the US government too powerful". Given that open ended question I would have to agree that US government is too powerful. Too powerful when it comes to war, too powerful when it comes to surveillance, too powerful when it comes to repression period.

[cliffhanger]

You will note that the question is open ended. The people polled are not asked "in what way is the US government too powerful". Given that open ended question I would have to agree that US government is too powerful. Too powerful when it comes to war, too powerful when it comes to surveillance, too powerful when it comes to repression period.
Maybe it's not powerful enough when it comes to surveillance. We collect huge amounts of data on each person but it's not harnessed to its full potential. We could really get an economy planned in no time if we merged all those consumer information reports about people into a cool big data planning office. Plus basically imagine the field day we'd have mining old internet posts for revisionism to jail libertarians and such.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Maybe it's not powerful enough when it comes to surveillance. We collect huge amounts of data on each person but it's not harnessed to its full potential. We could really get an economy planned in no time if we merged all those consumer information reports about people into a cool big data planning office. Plus basically imagine the field day we'd have mining old internet posts for revisionism to jail libertarians and such.

Y'know in Revleft I am never sure when a statement like that is parody ... or a to do list.

[cliffhanger]

Y'know in Revleft I am never sure when a statement like that is parody ... or a to do list.Why not both?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Y'know in Revleft I am never sure when a statement like that is parody ... or a to do list. ^That's why I like this board (and praise Allah every day that no one on this forum will probably ever taste real power)

[argeiphontes]

Just parroting Chomsky, but it's a triumph of propaganda. The only thing left (pun intended) within the spectrum of debate that limits private power is the government. If I had no idea that there was a revolutionary left, or thought it was all bull, I could rationally side with the government on the grounds that it's the only thing limiting private power, and the only thing I could hope to influence. So, turn those things upside down to make them look oppressive so you can dismantle them.

I'm sure some of you saw the granny on TV yelling "I want the government out of my medicare" or something like that. Or the recent outright lies about Obamacare. What a joke.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is the fact that the supposed widespread dissatisfaction with the state (and not just among the GOP, about 40% of Democrats also think that the government has "too much power") automatically translates into support for libertarian and/or far-right politics...what does this say about left? That it's mostly an abysmal failure? Or just chock it up to popular opinion about this subject not really mattering, Americans are just stupid, "belly of the beast" / legacy of "Red Scares", ???

[cliffhanger]

I think it says that a large section of American society (the core of which is white males) has a real material interest (as a section, or class in a broad sense, not necessarily this or that person) in the existing system. Many of these people would probably be "better off" in some way under socialism, but they don't generally believe that, and probably for pretty good reasons. A large number of people around them then have material interest in that powerful core being well-off, such as people who live with white males and so on. In turn, the people who oppose the well-off core are systematically oppressed in a variety of brutal ways, which makes their voices less prominent and focuses American bourgeois democracy on a narrow elite.

I think that a simple propaganda model is clearly false, because it can't explain class loyalty over long periods of time, and it can't explain why policies are seemingly so confused unless you point to that material class basis in a privileged petty-bourgeoisie stratum of American workers.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Is the fact that the supposed widespread dissatisfaction with the state (and not just among the GOP, about 40% of Democrats also think that the government has "too much power") automatically translates into support for libertarian and/or far-right politics...what does this say about left? That it's mostly an abysmal failure?

At the least its testimony to how weak the left is. I would think dissatisfaction with the power of the present government would be seen as an opportunity not an obstacle.

[argeiphontes]

^ Yeah, people could be looking even further left, if that was seen as reasonable. Or people knew what it even was...

[Popular Front of Judea]

Who should have more skepticism about bourgeois government than the radical left? I actually think a tactical alliance is possible with honest libertarians. There are a number areas of potential agreement. War, surveillance and corporate subsidies come immediately to mind.

[Red Flag Waver]

Between the communists and the right wing extremists are the drooling tv-watchers.
Really?

[Klaatu]

The same folks that believe "the government is too powerful" are the same folks that are on a hair-trigger alert to go bomb some foreign country into smithereens for some transgression, whether real or imagined.

[Remus Bleys]

Who should have more skepticism about bourgeois government than the radical left? I actually think a tactical alliance is possible with honest libertarians. There are a number areas of potential agreement. War, surveillance and corporate subsidies come immediately to mind.
The left can't even form a temporary alliance with itself.
This is why we need a Republican in charge, so that liberals can at least pretend to be against this crap.

[synthesis]

The left can't even form a temporary alliance with itself.
This is why we need a Republican in charge, so that liberals can at least pretend to be against this crap.

I really think if you took a sampling of posts from this forum over the course of the last twelve years, starting soon after Bush was elected and continuing at least until 2010, you wouldn't share this opinion. Republicans don't just get elected in a vacuum; it means the entire frame of political discourse in the U.S. has temporarily shifted rightward for at least as long as it takes for Americans to learn or remember that Democrats, in fact, at least pretend to give a shit about things like unions, "civil rights" and "equality."

The idea that the radical left is better off with a Republican in power is a version of the idea that "things have to get worse before they get better," as though the working class has ever been better off when things are "worse."

[Remus Bleys]

I really think if you took a sampling of posts from this forum over the course of the last twelve years, starting soon after Bush was elected and continuing at least until 2010, you wouldn't share this opinion. Republicans don't just get elected in a vacuum; it means the entire frame of political discourse in the U.S. has temporarily shifted rightward for at least as long as it takes for Americans to learn or remember that Democrats, in fact, at least pretend to give a shit about things like unions, "civil rights" and "equality."

The idea that the radical left is better off with a Republican in power is a version of the idea that "things have to get worse before they get better," as though the working class has ever been better off when things are "worse."
I was mocking liberals, not saying were better under Romney than Obama.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I really think if you took a sampling of posts from this forum over the course of the last twelve years, starting soon after Bush was elected and continuing at least until 2010, you wouldn't share this opinion. Republicans don't just get elected in a vacuum; it means the entire frame of political discourse in the U.S. has temporarily shifted rightward for at least as long as it takes for Americans to learn or remember that Democrats, in fact, at least pretend to give a shit about things like unions, "civil rights" and "equality."

Eh the 2000 election had more to do with the composition of the Supreme Court than any sizable shift to the right that year.

[tachosomoza]

Who should have more skepticism about bourgeois government than the radical left? I actually think a tactical alliance is possible with honest libertarians. There are a number areas of potential agreement. War, surveillance and corporate subsidies come immediately to mind.

No thank you. Those people are insufferable. Most of them support corporate subsidies, are social Darwinists, and harbor immense amounts of hatred and ill-will towards people of color and the conscious working class, along with vehemently hating anything even slightly resembling red.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Who should have more skepticism about bourgeois government than the radical left? I actually think a tactical alliance is possible with honest libertarians. There are a number areas of potential agreement. War, surveillance and corporate subsidies come immediately to mind.


No thank you. Those people are insufferable. Most of them support corporate subsidies, are social Darwinists, and harbor immense amounts of hatred and ill-will towards people of color and the conscious working class, along with vehemently hating anything even slightly resembling red.

You will note I said I said honest libertarians. There is a difference between principled libertarians and 'paleo-conservatives' like the Pauls, Ron and Rand or any of the Republican opportunists that have grabbed the libertarian banner. Principled libertarians do not support corporate subsidies. You will also note that I said 'tactical'. Oh and 'possible'. Not necessarily advocating for such an alliance.

Fun fact: For a brief time the SDS and William Buckley's Young Americans for Freedom engaged in such a tactical alliance. Strange but true.

[synthesis]

Eh the 2000 election had more to do with the composition of the Supreme Court than any sizable shift to the right that year.

I would argue regardless that the far-left and far-right in the U.S. generally feel more comfortable expressing their opinions when a Democrat or Republican is in office, respectively. You do kind of get into a "chicken or the egg" argument here, however.

[tachosomoza]

You will note I said I said honest libertarians. There is a difference between principled libertarians and 'paleo-conservatives' like the Pauls, Ron and Rand or any of the Republican opportunists that have grabbed the libertarian banner. Principled libertarians do not support corporate subsidies. You will also note that I said 'tactical'. Oh and 'possible'. Not necessarily advocating for such an alliance.

Fun fact: For a brief time the SDS and William Buckley's Young Americans for Freedom engaged in such a tactical alliance. Strange but true.

In America, libertarianism IS paleo-conservatism. States' rights, being in opposition to civil rights for minorities, going against the interests of the proletariat, anti-leftism. This is American libertarianism and I'd die before I ally with them.

[argeiphontes]

Those people are insufferable.

A few months ago I used to frequent a nonpolitical forum, that, probably because of the demographic (mostly rural), had a premium area that turned out to be a strange cesspool of far-right opinion. (It's strange because it was totally unrelated to the ostensible subject.) Not as bad as the guy who tried to buy the town in North Dakota, but kinda what you posted.

For fun (or masochism) I used to argue as an open libertarian socialist, just to see if I could get any traction. So, no mention of the M or R word unless somebody brought it up, giving lots of examples, referring to people's objective interests, etc. There were definitely unreasonable people there, and lots of vitriol, most of it directed at Obama of course. Still, if you talked mostly about working class interests and power relations, you could get people to acknowledge some of your points. I definitely got the impression that there was misdirected angst because of people's ingrained preconceptions, so there was some ability to break thru, but nobody would ever say that socialism was a good idea or anything. Concrete things had more traction. I may have broadened the spectrum of debate a little, though. Eventually people would mostly just give me a ribbing like, "Hey, do you still love communism?" (Answer: Yep! :D)

There were definitely hard-liners. Lots of this was based on ideas of individual freedom, low taxation, religion, love of firearms ;) well you know...

Heh. One day I was drinking and listening to Pete Seeger, who I really love, and got so pissed at them that I posted a rude comment and haven't been back since. (The site itself isn't interesting enough anyway; I did apologize.)

The thing is, the angst is real. The economic pain is real. They are part of the working class who have to be convinced that there's a better alternative. (Not everybody can be of course.) It was a little ambivalent whether or not I felt better or worse about our prospects, but people are people, most people aren't crazy and there are lots of extremists on the left as well. The trick is creating that 'critical space' where people start to think rather than parrot. And having concrete alternatives that you can say, "Look, those people over there are living like X, successfully, and are happy doing it. So why are you suffering when you don't have to?"

I'm just an "Armchair Anarchist" so far so maybe I give too much credit but it was an interesting experience.

[Popular Front of Judea]

In America, libertarianism IS paleo-conservatism. States' rights, being in opposition to civil rights for minorities, going against the interests of the proletariat, anti-leftism. This is American libertarianism and I'd die before I ally with them.

Duly noted. For the record there is nothing inherently reactionary about the 10th Amendment. It's a knife that can cut both ways. For example here in Washington State we are going our own way with respect to marijuana prohibition.

[Red Commissar]

What we have to keep in mind is the context these questions are asked in. One interesting trend the article points out is that when Bush was in office, the positions were switched- Democrats felt the government had too much power while Republicans not so much. What's different here is the gap between the Democrats who feel the government has too much power and the Republicans who feel the same. There is a much higher percentage with the latter- though I would argue this is because of the media going on overdrive with right wing media which has, imo, effectively painted Obama as some left-wing demagogue intent on establishing the United Socialist States of America.

They feel the government is too large- maybe because of its repressive characteristics- but for the most part they feel it is a hindrance- ie welfare making people dependent and making business unproductive.

Looking at the bottom of the page, they provide the example of the question. It was literally "Do you think the federal government today -- [ROTATED: has too much power, has about the right amount of power, or has too little power

I think responses would have been different if they asked specifically certain areas- ie, do you think the government is too involved with welfare of the population? Does the government have too much power in law enforcement? Immigration/border control? Military power? Taxing powers? Education? Media? There's a lot of ways you can frame this question and get different responses.

[adipocere]

No offense to the OP or the responses here, but why the fuck are we even discussing bullshit polls which are deliberately framed to be utterly meaningless and that serve only to infantilize public opinion by preventing meaningful expression?



edit - More relevant would be a discussion about how mindless polling undermines a society.

[Alan OldStudent]

When I talk with American conservatives or libertarians about the government being too powerful, I tell them that they're confusing the dancing monkeys with the organ grinders.

These libertarians and conservative anti-government types are blaming the dancing monkeys, whereas the problem really lies with the organ grinders.

The big corporations, the super wealthy, i.e., the capitalist class are the organ grinders. The politicians are merely the monkeys that dance to the organ grinders' tune.

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[Venas Abiertas]

This is what I love about living in Latin America: most people here understand the inherent evils of capitalism. Few have benefitted from the neoliberal reforms and many are open to other social and economic projects. Socialism has a history in these countries. Most have had either socialist governments or attempts to implement one in their past. Some have socialist or at least left-leaning governments right now and can be held up or at least examined as examples.

There are leftist TV and radio stations, leftist bookstores, and leftist political parties that get more than a few percent of the vote, and you can see Che Guevara shirts, hats, and car window stickers all over, and yes, people do know who he is.

The total brainwashing (and yes, it is brainwashing) that North Americans have been subjected to regarding socialism or communism has not been as severe here and people are much more willing to question and criticize the existing political and economic systems.

None of this means that Latin America is on the verge of implementing true socialism any time soon, but at least as a leftist one can feel much more "at home" here and comfortable in expressing views or organizing and protesting. There are many more options here for leftist activity. I sense despair in a lot of the comments above and in other threads from posters especially in the USA, where as a leftist you are treated like a three-headed leper with bleeding warts and body odor.

For any of you feeling this despair I urge you to take a few weeks and come to Latin America to visit and you will see that you are not alone and that our goals are not hopeless.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

This is what I love about living in Latin America: most people here understand the inherent evils of capitalism. Few have benefitted from the neoliberal reforms and many are open to other social and economic projects. Socialism has a history in these countries. Most have had either socialist governments or attempts to implement one in their past. Some have socialist or at least left-leaning governments right now and can be held up or at least examined as examples.

There are leftist TV and radio stations, leftist bookstores, and leftist political parties that get more than a few percent of the vote, and you can see Che Guevara shirts, hats, and car window stickers all over, and yes, people do know who he is.

The total brainwashing (and yes, it is brainwashing) that North Americans have been subjected to regarding socialism or communism has not been as severe here and people are much more willing to question and criticize the existing political and economic systems.

None of this means that Latin America is on the verge of implementing true socialism any time soon, but at least as a leftist one can feel much more "at home" here and comfortable in expressing views or organizing and protesting. There are many more options here for leftist activity. I sense despair in a lot of the comments above and in other threads from posters especially in the USA, where as a leftist you are treated like a three-headed leper with bleeding warts and body odor.

For any of you feeling this despair I urge you to take a few weeks and come to Latin America to visit and you will see that you are not alone and that our goals are not hopeless.

Comrade Venas here just brought up something that I hope you all read carefully.

We Americans do NOT have a viable left-wing party in our country. None whatsoever. Under our two-party system we only have a center-right wing party (Democrats) and a right wing party (Republicans). We have nothing like the left wing parties in Europe...not even Social Democrats. With a few minor exceptions, we don't have hugely influential leftist youth organizations, or leftist bookstores, or leftist newspapers. Left-wing media in the U.S. is, in almost all instances, a purely low key affair. Real honest-to-God left wing views and opinions go virtually unheard in this country.

Sometimes I think that my comrades in Europe and Latin America forget this.

[synthesis]

It's not just that we don't have a left wing; it's that the working class itself has been systematically targeted and politically neutralized in much the same way that the government has targeted antagonistic governments abroad.