“My own view, however, is that the American public doesn’t really understand the full implications of “small government” ideology. Simply put, they like it only because they’ve never had to endure it…

It would be nice, though, if more southern electorates realized how dramatically federal intervention has improved their lives – and sustained their economies. But I won’t be holding my breath.”

-Publius

“Oh massah massah, thank ye kindly! Massah, we nevah know how much we owe ye!”

The paternal undertones of this piece can hardly be overstated. In essence, this argument differs little from the pathologizing Kansas argument of Thomas Frank, that Kansans and other “Middle Americans” only vote for free-market parties because they’ve been duped. In a tip to my good friend Matt, I suspect there are some interesting Foucaultian dynamics in simply writing off your political opponents as delusional buffoons, rather than actually considering the points that they raise.

In fact, it’s easy to turn this argument on its head – American liberalism has only been supported by the free-wheeling capitalist system that underpins it, and without the gains accrued over the years from the morally-based liberty found in the Constitution, we simply couldn’t afford single-payer schemes and other social safety nets.

It’s even more fun to apply this argument to foreign relations. Iraq will never know how much we’ve done to liberalize their economies! Those piss-ant states in Africa, South America, Asia, and elsewhere should more grateful for the improvement we have brought to their lives.

The essential characteristic of totalitarian thought is justifying the ends with means, which is why one condemns “making the world safe for democracy.” Yet while the Left is candid in its skepticism of intervention abroad (and for goodness sake, read Trahern’s piece on Sri Lanka already), this cocked eye is replaced with wide-eyed embraces when it comes to intervention at home.

By Evan Lisull

GINGRICH: Why is that our problem? I mean, why — what — if the — if the — what — what is it — why are we protecting these guys? Why does it become an American problem?

Of course, Newt’s issue isn’t the chinamen (dude, not the preferred nomenclature – Uighurs, please), and he is right that this shouldn’t be an American problem – after all, as Hilzoy has painstakingly pointed out (executive summary), this has absolutely nothing to do with this country’s Jihad on Terr-ah OCOFKAGWOT. Or at least, until the Bush Administration decided to name them a terrorist organization, in spite of the fact that the Uighur-Chinese conflict was, as Newt implies, not an American problem. It became an American problem when we proverbially peed on their rug, keeping them detained for seven years even though the administration detaining them found that they were not, in fact, enemy combatants.

Like his Lebowskian counterpart, Newt is more right than he will ever know. This shouldn’t be an American problem, just as the soap opera of internal Pakistani politics shouldn’t be an American problem, just as the conduct of the Cayman Islands should not be an American problem. Newt and his new BFF Harry Reid want to act as though America can simply draw a line in the Sonoran sand – “across this line, you do NOT” – ignoring the fact that this line was weakened the minute we started playing world police, dropping bombs intermittently on those countries with names we couldn’t pronounce. Playing fast and loose with international sovereignty cuts both ways. Oh, but, y’know, 9/11. Rule of law? Bitch, please.

Meanwhile, FOX had better start drafting “Meet the Uighurs.” First episode: “Ham Dinner Hijinks.”

Polls like these put a whole new twist on Hayek’s knowledge problem (hat tip: Yglesias):

Given a choice of three options, just 24 percent of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29 percent) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17 percent think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30 percent) have no idea.

Rasmussen isn’t asking how the program will be implemented, or whether permits will be auctioned or granted – they’re asking what folder to put the issue in. And almost a third are putting it with Bernie Madoff’s information.

There are two approaches to take here. One is absolute fretting and end-of-America prophesying. This isn’t used as an epithet, since it’s an entirely reasonable way to respond. This is still a democratically-based republic, one that has leaned closer to direct democracy than it has to a class-based system. If the vast majority of the country can’t even speak Wonkish, let alone understand it, what hope do we have of having any sort of democratic influence on policy? There’s also the issue of what wasn’t polled. This is an incredibly basic question, but sometimes it’s not the basic questions that matter. Sure everyone knows what “war” is – but do they know why, and what’s the reason how? It’s amusing that this tip should come from Matt Yglesias, as he has a predilection for flashing poll numbers as proof of the superiority of his policy stances. Frankly, at this point I wonder if I’d even want to have this polity on my side for anything. Increasingly, the government of this country is symbolic, and voting has more in common with wearing the team colors than it does with reflections on society

That being the case, there’s a more contrary approach: why should anyone outside of the Beltway care? After all, these are people with jobs and kids and mortgage payments to get in. Perhaps studying OMB reports isn’t exactly the best use of their time. The implications here are pretty troubling – if utilization tends towards individuals that make up, say, one percent of the population deciding one hundred percent of policy. This is why you have support for an awful, awful bill like CPSIA, which was cast as “keep lead of toys.” Never mind that the bill quite literally is putting small-sized retail shops out of business (and much, much more) – symbolically, it worked, and hence it got support. Legislators preached the cause, bootleggers and baptists wrote the legalese, and everybody got together for a nice photo-op and luncheon afterward. For all the Liberal – note that this is capitalized and that it is not “center-right” – tendencies of this country, it has a funny way of pivoting towards increasing intervention in fields domestic and foreign.

Whatever it may be, it should make someone slightly skeptical of deciding national – and, by imperial translation, international policy – on the basis of the masses. Yet if democracy is the least-bad option (if ol’ drunk Churchill is to be belived?), then what? Might we be bold enough to suggest that Thoreau had it right all along?

NB: One final question: how many of those polled were elected officials? I’m only half-kidding.