Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Rachel Maddow Calls Out The Republicans On Their Big Government Agenda
On her MSNBC program, Rachel Maddow debunked the idea that all Republicans support small government. The reality is that all Republicans talk small government, but most want to take away liberties and grow government. Maddow said, “Republicans all say they are small government libertarian conservatives. But what they have done when they have power is authoritarian big government stuff.”
Here is the video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Maddow began with the three individual freedom killing abortion related bills that the House is currently working on, “Freedom, liberty, letting people do what they want! And then they arrived in Washington and immediately started working on putting government in charge of every single pregnancy in America. Even as they slowed the legislative calendar way down, stopped doing much of anything else, they advanced not one, not two, but three super radical bills to restrict abortion rights. One of those bills had a hearing in the House today. Another one has a hearing tomorrow.”
Later she explained the two strands of current conservative thought, “Proudly speaking, there are two strands of conservative thinking in America right now. There’s libertarian conservatism and then authoritarian conservatism. Small leave me alone government here and big intrusive government over here. And of course, nobody calls themselves an authoritarian conservative…Nobody says I am for big, intrusive government, vote for me. They all say they are on the libertarian side, no matter what kind of Republican is running on what kind of platform, they all say they’re for smaller government, limited government, personal freedom. Those are their buzz words.”
She continued by examining the last decade of Republican policies, “But look at the Republican policies over the last decade. Expanding the National Security Agency, NSA, so it has the ability to wiretap phone calls without a warrant and sift through e-mails, look through library records. Is that small leave me alone government or is that big intrusive government? In the last administration, with a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress, they increased the size of the federal government by more than any other time since World War II when they created the Department of Homeland Security. Small government conservatives, supposedly, put in place a policy of indefinite detention, allowing an American citizen to be arrested and held without charges for years and years and years. I mean, they support the death penalty. The government’s right to kill you. You want to talk about balancing the power of the individual versus the power of the government? Sort of doesn’t get more fundamental than that. Republicans all say they are small government libertarian conservatives. But what they have done when they have power is authoritarian big government stuff.
Maddow explained the big government tendencies of small government conservatives, “That’s true whether or not Democrats went along with them or whether they undid this when they had the chance. This is all Republican initiated policy, and not just on national security, it is culture war, too. The government stepping in to censor textbooks. After the District of Columbia decided they may want gay marriage to be legal, the Republican Congress is making it a federal priority to step in as the federal government and quash that. If you get pregnant, it is not you making the decision or you and your doctor, what you want doesn’t matter. What your doctor recommends doesn’t matter as far as small government folks decide, the government should be the one making that call, not you. This is really big government policy.”
After Maddow pointed out that Democrats are starting to get it, and exploit the split between the authoritarian and libertarian Republicans, she said, “But still, the most important question, the most interesting question at least in American politics, since the Republican primaries in 2008, I think, since in particular the rise of the Ron Paul phenomenon is whether or not people who actually believe in the small government stuff, the true believers, the people that really believe in it, instead of just paying lip service to it, whether they have any hope of surviving in Republican politics.”
Maddow moved on to the surprising defeat of the Patriot Act in the House, “My old friend, Ron Paul, Rand Paul’s dad, he used to talk to me, too, Ron Paul announced opposition to the act on libertarian grounds. When the bill came up to vote today, it was defeated, unexpectedly. 26 Republicans joined with 122 Democrats in voting against reauthorization these provisions of the Patriot Act that were expiring. 26 Republicans bucked their own party on this vote. Now, Democrats voted against the White House on this as well. But that is sort of dog bites man. The left has been criticizing the Patriot Act forever. The man bites dog news here is all of the Republicans voting against it from the right.
Rachel Maddow concluded, “They are starting to make quiet noises about opposition to the Afghanistan war. Everybody in Republican politics long ago learned to talk a fashionable libertarianish line. Democrats are just learning to exploit the fact that Republicans talk a small government game but actually have a really big government agenda. Politics now? What happens next if Republicans actually do start putting their money where their mouth is, if they do start supporting leave me alone government policies, instead of just saying that they do. I think it would be the great American political realignment. Dick Cheney and John Boehner and working together, Rand Paul and the “Rachel Maddow Show” together again on the other side? Call me!”
The vote on the Patriot Act was John Boehner’s worst nightmare come to life. There is a bloc of freshman Republicans who really believe in the small government conservatism that they ran on. These members are principled, and they aren’t going to fall into line on every issue for the House leadership. The surprise defeat reflects very badly on the Republican House leadership, because they should have never attempted to use a procedural maneuver that required a 2/3 majority unless they were certain that they had the votes.
This isn’t the Republican House majority of the last decade, and Tom DeLay isn’t going to be there to hammer members of the caucus into line. What we have here is a deeply fragmented Republican Party that is going to struggle to pass any legislation that might divide the caucus. I suspect that this was the opening salvo from the libertarians in the direction of Boehner and Cantor. The small government conservatives will be taken seriously, or else they will gum up the works whenever they get the chance.
Rachel Maddow did hit on a valuable political message that Democrats need to seize on. Democrats should not only exploit the divide within the Republican congressional caucus, but they should also keep this message in mind for 2012. Exposing the majority of Republican politicians as the authoritarian lovers of big government that they are could be a powerful tool for Democrats to use as they attempt to take back the House next year. The Republican Party is still fractured and divided, and if they don’t find a way to unify quickly, America could once again be saying hello to Speaker Pelosi in 2012.
Rachel Maddow completely dismantled the Republican claims that President Obama has grown the size of gov ...
Tonight on The Rachel Maddow Show, Rep. Ron Paul's son, Dr. Rand Paul announced tonight that he has formed a ...
Rachel Maddow called out the mainstream media for blaming the dead, dying, and virtually non-existent te ...
Rachel Maddow isn’t alarmist, but she is sounding the alarm and eviscerating Michigan Republicans for th ...
On the "Psycho Talk" segment of his MSNBC show tonight, Ed Schultz turned his attention to Rep. Ron Paul (R- ...
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Rachel is spot on. It’s not about spending; they love to spend too, just on different things. And it’s not about rights because they hate rights. They don’t like religious freedom either, despite all the talk, since they don’t think anyone should be free to be anything but a bigoted Christofascist. Rachel is just brilliant here, demolishing the GOP.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:02 am
I have to say I have been shocked that the Dems have been sleeping all this time. they slept through the 2010 elections and they seem to sleep 99% of the time.The Dems dont need to play dirty, but if they dont start telling the people whats going on then they will snooze right through the next round of elections. Boehner and cantor are going to dirty their way right through the next congress.
Rand Paul put in a bill to ensure any decision by the president meets their approval, totally eating away at the presidents responsibilities.
These people are not just big government, they are mean greedy and small people who could give a rip less about the poeple they support. Hiding behind “the will of the people” needs to be exposed by the Dem congress.
Alli
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Dems aren’t sleeping anymore. TPM does a good job of reporting what Dems have been doing and saying lately. They even have radio ads out already. They haven’t started on what Rachel talked about but they have been pushing other things like ‘where are the jobs?’ and showing Americans what the GOP wants to cut.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 11:27 am
I hopefully stand corrected my friend, thank you
Sarah Jones
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:08 am
I can’t believe it took this long for Dems to catch on to this. Freedom? Where in the heck is the freedom in the authoritarian Republicans? Freedom means nothing to them other than economic freedom to rape the middle class and poor, free of regulations, free of ethics– that is the kind of “freedom” they advocate. And of course, that isn’t the “freedom” we built this country on. Meanwhile they are shoving their religious beliefs down our throats at every turn and trying to send women back to caveman times while stripping voting rights away from poor and minority people. Freedom my a$$.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:21 am
I am of the opinion that the Dems knew all along. I think Rachael is just trying to put a painful reminder in their shorts that its time to speak out.
I keep wondering if Congress really isn’t a board game they play
Sarah Jones
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:29 am
They truly suffer from an inability to use the media properly. Republicans spend all of their time taking media training – you know, when they should be “reading” bills (this explains why they can’t seem to get to page one, though they have aids for that whom we pay quite well) or golfing or drinking at a bondage club.
They train how to be on TV and stick to talking points. Democrats figure if they keep talking about the facts, the people will care. The people don’t understand! Democrats have to boil it down and they’d better learn fast. At this point we have the corporatist authoritarians versus the sort of corporatists. Not a lot of choice but at least our personal freedoms are not being attacked by Democrats and the wages of the middle class are not being sucked dry by them.
Anne
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:45 am
I always have to laugh when people talk about “small government.” That mantra is confined only to things that the Party of No disagrees with. When it comes to wars, or intruding on reproductive rights, they have no problem with big government. It was especially hilarious last summer when “small government” advocates were bleating for the federal government to step in.
Reynardine
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 11:48 am
What they believe in is a government that is small enough to be controlled by the corporatocracy and big enough to control you.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
thats exactly what I think. They want the government weakened enough for the financial entities to be able to run it from behind. That has been my position all along. The republicans are just dumb enough to not understand they wont be needed after that occurs
Sarah Jones
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Brilliantly accurate.
novenator
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
This was a very good segment, and something I’ve been trying to point out for 2 years now. The cons always bitch about ‘big government’ but turn around and try to increase the size and scope of the very worst parts of it (usually with borrow and spend policies that create more national debt).
Rosanne
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
So well laid out, it was like a poem. You showed audience how the GOP couldn’t possibly be “small government” and ratchet up Homeland Security and Patriot Act at the very same time. I really think that fear of “death panel” was from the HC insurance company handbook; amazing how they inspire fear… and then do the very thing they deplore.
Rmuse
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Rachel makes a valid point that most have known for a long time. I just have to wonder how long the small government types will be able to hold out against the GOP machine. Money talks and although there are some small government proponents in Congress now, will they turn out to be Statesmen/women who will put country first or career politicians who sell their souls for political contributions. Whatever the case, it is sweet to see Boehner and the establishment Republicans squirm if only for a minute.
Rich Lawson
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
This is an insightful article, although I wish it weren’t so incredibly one-sided. There is no mention of democratic positions that are also big spending (a million examples) and authoritarian (can you say seat belt law?). I, like most Americans, am a moderate with a slight lean to the right (smaller gov). The examples that Rachel provides are the primary reason why I despise many Repub politicians, i.e. their stance on abortion, religion, gay marriage, and the environment.
Maybe we should start a Liberal Republican Party? Or a Conservative Democratic Party? The nutballs on the far left and far right lunatic fringes drive me crazy.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Im not sure the article is one sided. The republicans are the ones that make the claim to be small government and this article debunks that claim. If it were an article on government size in general and how to make it smaller I think your point would be well taken
Rich Lawson
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Good point. I guess I take umbrage at sentences like this “The reality is that all Republicans talk small government, but most want to take away liberties and grow government.”
Oh really? Most want to take away liberties and grow government? How about ” some republicans seem to want to ..”
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
Juan is making up scenarios and then calling someone pathetic because of what he thinks someone is like. Who is the pathetic one?
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Well there were 29 republicans in Congress yesterday who voted the section of the Patriot act down, so I cant say all want to take away your rights and keep government large. But I will say you wont see either party making any effort to make it smaller. And quite frankly the need to make it smaller hasnt really been made. That needs to be balanced against what the people need
Rich Lawson
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
OK, but the Patriot Act is whole different kettle of fish. It is all about getting tough on terrorists versus acting like terrorists don’t exist. I don’t know if the Patriot Act is good or not, but I do know there are 1000′s of people who want to kill you and me because we are “infidels”.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
I simply used that as an example of people who dont want to grow the government in that area. Certainly there are people that want to kill us, is it as big as Bush said it was? I doubt it. I dont see any Muslims here car bombing or anything. The infidel stuff was good for scaring people at one time, but in my mind the numbers of people that would actually do anything here is tiny. The history proves that. I dont go for extremes. Are there extremist mulsims? Yes. Are they attacking? No. All the Patriot act did was allow Bush And Obama to spy on us. And that was a government growth in itself
theButterFly
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Thank you for this article. You’ve written about something that I have questioned a great number of my Conservative “small government” supporting friends on repeatedly over the past few years especially with regard to the abortion issue as well as the question of gay rights. It never sat with me that Conservatives will say that they are in favour of small government, but at the same time are in favour of making laws that increase the presence of government in the lives of people. I hope that this contradiction continues to be pointed out by individuals with far more ability to influence public opinion then I.
Libertarian American
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Okay so can we finally all agree? … Vote BOTH sides of the “Big Government” Party out of office and lets finally stack the Congress with Libertarians!! RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012!!!
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
We can agree that the size of the government is commiserate with the needs of the people. The size of the government is not and cannot be based on a group of people just saying it must be smaller. This is 2011, and we should be moving forward not backward. We are after all about 10 light years behind Europe. The needs of the people must be assesed first. Also remmeber that in taking away from the fed you give to the state, which will then become fantastically larger(including taxes from the state). Unless we all go back to living in caves like good little slaves.
I like Ron Paul, but I am not sure for president
Michael Wong
Feb. 9th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
The big secret of the Republicans is that they support freedom of CAPITAL, not freedom of people. The “freedoms” they are most concerned with are the freedom to do what you want with your MONEY. They don’t think people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies, or free to believe what they want, or even necessarily have the right to be physically free until convicted in a court of law. All they care about is freedom of MONEY. In Republican America, money has more rights than people do.
Kevin
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:32 am
Oddly, Democrats don’t want to control our personal lives, our religion, etc- and that is the freedom this country was founded upon. I don’t see how they both want the same thing, though I think both have been tainted by the corporate take over of America — the GOP has obviously been infiltrated to the larger degree by corporatism, simply based upon their votes.
Mark
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Indeed. The idea that either of the two is for small government is absurd, and has been for decades. We could spend all day listing examples of the push for bigger government in both parties.
True, once upon a time you could kinda differentiate the two along these lines, but that ended a long, long time ago. Then, for a time, you could reliably count on Dems being for huge increases in government surrounding social programs, where Reps would push for huge increases in military spending, et al.
Now it’s all up for grabs. Both dabble in everything, looking to increase their footprint in all corners of our lives. This seems obvious to me, and I’m not sure why people still cling to this idea that anyone is genuinely working to reduce the size of our government in any meaningful way.
Tiera
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 12:34 am
What, What, What?
Ban gay marriage, ban abortion, your right to end your life, ban Mosques from being built near ground zero, ban gays from serving in the military, ban unwed mothers and gays from teaching.
Nope! Them conservatives and Republicans have no desire to control our personal lives.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 8:12 am
Amen Tiera
Mike
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 6:54 am
What Rachel Mddow ignores in her intellectual dishonesty is that the limited government position is that government should still intervene to stop murder and other forms of violence/aggression between individuals, but should leave almost every thing else alone. This means that for those that believe fetuses are individuals who deserve to be protected from being murdered, being pro-limited government and being for prohibiting abortions are entirely logically consistent.
Luckily for Democrats and propagandists like Maddow, sheep are easily moved by appeals to emotion especially when it’s an attack on Republicans.
drklassen
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
Yes, the abortion issue *can* be posited as “save the babies”; although that argument would hold a LOT more water if they only spent half as much energy on keeping them alive once they are born.
And taking that stance STILL requires a HUGE government intervention as one would have to monitor every single pregnancy (while, ironically, only paying for the monitoring, not the pregnancy itself). Every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a possible homicide; ever action a woman takes would have to be government approved for the fetus health—no smoking or drinking and what about diet?!
And you don’t address the USA-PATRIOT act intrusions…
Michael Wong
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 7:32 am
I love the way “Mike” above says that “limited government” means government should only intervene to stop violence between individuals. Even if that rationale can be used to support their radical behaviour on abortion, how does it explain the attacks on gay marriage, the attacks on Muslim mosques, the “Ten Commandments in the courthouse” nonsense, the public prayer nonsense, the “faith based charities” nonsense, the “no gays in the military” nonsense, or the police-state Patriot Act, or the farm subsidies, or the enormous expansion of the military even though the nation is not under any threat of invasion, or dozens of overlapping federal agencies being created in the name of homeland security? Oh wait, I forgot, all of that is just an “appeal to emotion” so “Mike” doesn’t have to refute any of it, right?
Mike
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 8:32 am
@Michael,
—Even if that rationale can be used to support their radical behaviour on abortion, how does it explain the attacks on gay marriage, the attacks on Muslim mosques,—
“Radical” is just your smear adjective, it’s not an objective quality of the position.
Any way, Maddow’s segment was about abortion. I am not referring to any other charges against Republicans alleging they support big government.
I will say though that government recognizing any form of marriage is an extension of government power, not a limitation on government power. The most limited government position is government not recognizing any marriage form at all. Those who want official recognition of same-sex or incest relationships as ‘marriage’ are calling for larger government than those who want it confined to non-consanguineous opposite sex relationships.
Any way, this is your attempt to deflect from my point that I’ve played into. The main point, again, is that Maddow is being dishonest.
Mark
Feb. 10th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
RON PAUL 2012!!!