With the exception of sports, particularly football, few topics generate more controversy than the role of government.
It's not surprising that a recent AP poll showed that Americans had a negative view of government and expressed little hope that elected officials can or will solve the nation's major problems.
The word "government" evokes an automatic negative reaction in most Americans, dating back to the origin of our nation. After all, our nation was founded through violent revolution of the colonies against the mighty British Empire. Let freedom and independence ring.
Governments throughout much of the world are authoritarian and autocratic. We want no part of that. And even though our government is "different," and even said to be a model, we are suspicious and wary of its power, real or imagined.
Yet, for all our wariness of government, even the most anti-government folks among us, are ambivalent when it comes to specifics.
Researchers know that the answer to any question depends on how it is asked, as illustrated by the following example.
A seminary student asked the Bishop whether he could smoke while praying. "Of course not," answered the Bishop.
The next day, this student encountered another student smoking while he was praying. "Hey, you can't do that," said the student.
"Why not?" asked the second student.
"Because I asked the Bishop if I could smoke while praying, and he said I couldn't," replied the first student.
The second student responded, "Well, I asked the Bishop if I could pray anytime I wanted to, and he said that I could. "
So, the answer to any question depends on how it is asked - and how the respondent interprets it. When asked their opinion of government, local residents are probably not thinking of how Allie Mayer presides over the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors or how Art Carter presides over the Green County Board. They are more likely thinking of the federal government, programs they don't like, and the taxes they pay. In fact, when queried on specifics, people expressed more faith in local than in the federal government. In this, local government officials like Allie, Art, and their respective boards, can take some comfort.
As we know, the federal government is composed of the three branches, with multiple components, bureaus, departments, and agencies. Some people don't like the President and equate him with "government." Some of us like the President, but may not approve of some of his decisions.
Many people don't like the Congress, currently held in particularly low esteem. Yet, even those who don't like the Congress may like their own representative, else they would not be elected. I can identify with that - I supported our previous representative, Tammy Baldwin, and our current Mark Pocan, but hold a very negative view of the House of Representatives.
So the opinion expressed on "government" depends on how the question is asked, and how respondents interpret it.
Perhaps the major source of ambivalence on government is perception of the role of the federal government through programs that affect our lives. The popular shibboleths of the day, repeated constantly by the blown dry clones in the national media, are that government is too big, that government spends too much, and even that it is "out of control." But when things go haywire, these same critics are first to cry, "don't just stand there - do something. "
Just "getting out of the way," as some critics implore, isn't the answer. It was government "getting out of the way" of Wall Street and the big banks that brought us to the brink of financial collapse. It took government action to stave off worldwide total financial collapse. One can quibble whether government did enough, or did the right things, but without timely government action by both Bush and Obama, we surely would have experienced disaster.
After all, with sensible government programs and oversight instituted after the Great Depression, the system was reasonably stable for nearly a half century. Deregulation of financial institutions and government "getting out of the way" were largely responsible for the Great Recession.
Answers to more specific questions of that poll revealed further ambivalence. A vast majority of people expressed pessimism of government's ability to make progress on major problems. But people expressed a different opinion when questions were posed in another way.
When asked what problems they would like to see government working on, the most frequent answer was, incredibly, health care reform. That included both supporters and opponents of the President's Affordable Care Act.
When asked in general terms, nearly half the respondents said, "the less government, the better." But even of this group, 31 percent affirmed that the nation needs a strong government to handle complex problems.
And while half urged "less government," some f48 percent said, "there are more things the government should be doing."
None of this is shocking. We can all point to expenditures and programs to which we are opposed, or are at least skeptical. And most of us point to problems that we believe need more attention. As no political individual or institution can completely satisfy everyone, it is tempting to express displeasure with the whole system.
In my opinion, it is inconsistent, if not irresponsible, to equate skepticism and wariness of government with the attitude that government has no responsibility for addressing complex problems of our society. As I pointed out in my column of Jan. 3, even programs that are targeted to some, such as Social Security and Medicare to the elderly, benefit younger people and the broader society in many ways.
There are clearly some things for which the public sector at various levels has responsibility. And there are some things best left to the private sector, with some debatable level of regulation and oversight.
Next week: some examples.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti@tds. net.
It's not surprising that a recent AP poll showed that Americans had a negative view of government and expressed little hope that elected officials can or will solve the nation's major problems.
The word "government" evokes an automatic negative reaction in most Americans, dating back to the origin of our nation. After all, our nation was founded through violent revolution of the colonies against the mighty British Empire. Let freedom and independence ring.
Governments throughout much of the world are authoritarian and autocratic. We want no part of that. And even though our government is "different," and even said to be a model, we are suspicious and wary of its power, real or imagined.
Yet, for all our wariness of government, even the most anti-government folks among us, are ambivalent when it comes to specifics.
Researchers know that the answer to any question depends on how it is asked, as illustrated by the following example.
A seminary student asked the Bishop whether he could smoke while praying. "Of course not," answered the Bishop.
The next day, this student encountered another student smoking while he was praying. "Hey, you can't do that," said the student.
"Why not?" asked the second student.
"Because I asked the Bishop if I could smoke while praying, and he said I couldn't," replied the first student.
The second student responded, "Well, I asked the Bishop if I could pray anytime I wanted to, and he said that I could. "
So, the answer to any question depends on how it is asked - and how the respondent interprets it. When asked their opinion of government, local residents are probably not thinking of how Allie Mayer presides over the Monroe Township Board of Supervisors or how Art Carter presides over the Green County Board. They are more likely thinking of the federal government, programs they don't like, and the taxes they pay. In fact, when queried on specifics, people expressed more faith in local than in the federal government. In this, local government officials like Allie, Art, and their respective boards, can take some comfort.
As we know, the federal government is composed of the three branches, with multiple components, bureaus, departments, and agencies. Some people don't like the President and equate him with "government." Some of us like the President, but may not approve of some of his decisions.
Many people don't like the Congress, currently held in particularly low esteem. Yet, even those who don't like the Congress may like their own representative, else they would not be elected. I can identify with that - I supported our previous representative, Tammy Baldwin, and our current Mark Pocan, but hold a very negative view of the House of Representatives.
So the opinion expressed on "government" depends on how the question is asked, and how respondents interpret it.
Perhaps the major source of ambivalence on government is perception of the role of the federal government through programs that affect our lives. The popular shibboleths of the day, repeated constantly by the blown dry clones in the national media, are that government is too big, that government spends too much, and even that it is "out of control." But when things go haywire, these same critics are first to cry, "don't just stand there - do something. "
Just "getting out of the way," as some critics implore, isn't the answer. It was government "getting out of the way" of Wall Street and the big banks that brought us to the brink of financial collapse. It took government action to stave off worldwide total financial collapse. One can quibble whether government did enough, or did the right things, but without timely government action by both Bush and Obama, we surely would have experienced disaster.
After all, with sensible government programs and oversight instituted after the Great Depression, the system was reasonably stable for nearly a half century. Deregulation of financial institutions and government "getting out of the way" were largely responsible for the Great Recession.
Answers to more specific questions of that poll revealed further ambivalence. A vast majority of people expressed pessimism of government's ability to make progress on major problems. But people expressed a different opinion when questions were posed in another way.
When asked what problems they would like to see government working on, the most frequent answer was, incredibly, health care reform. That included both supporters and opponents of the President's Affordable Care Act.
When asked in general terms, nearly half the respondents said, "the less government, the better." But even of this group, 31 percent affirmed that the nation needs a strong government to handle complex problems.
And while half urged "less government," some f48 percent said, "there are more things the government should be doing."
None of this is shocking. We can all point to expenditures and programs to which we are opposed, or are at least skeptical. And most of us point to problems that we believe need more attention. As no political individual or institution can completely satisfy everyone, it is tempting to express displeasure with the whole system.
In my opinion, it is inconsistent, if not irresponsible, to equate skepticism and wariness of government with the attitude that government has no responsibility for addressing complex problems of our society. As I pointed out in my column of Jan. 3, even programs that are targeted to some, such as Social Security and Medicare to the elderly, benefit younger people and the broader society in many ways.
There are clearly some things for which the public sector at various levels has responsibility. And there are some things best left to the private sector, with some debatable level of regulation and oversight.
Next week: some examples.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti@tds. net.
