While President Obama’s march toward big government hit some unanticipated roadblocks this summer, it is easy to forget that a little over a decade ago, the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, announced that the “era of big government” was over.  In fact then-Vice President Al Gore was put in charge of “reinventing government,” examining even the most basic procurement practices in hopes of saving taxpayers money. 

As American politics was perceived to be dominated by a gravitational pull to the center, critics on both sides were concerned that the two major political parties had morphed into different sides of the same coin.  During the George W. Bush presidency, the pursuit of compassionate conservatism led to a rise in social entitlement spending that alarmed many on the right, though he did balance it with pro-growth economic policies, with tax cuts as the centerpiece.  Yet still, for many fiscal conservatives, all did not seem right with the world.   

Today, Americans who believe in the virtues of fiscal responsibility, limited government and individual freedom—which includes many Independents and moderate Democrats—should have their faith restored in the two-party system, as the differences between them could not be any clearer. Perhaps the healthiest conversation that the debate over healthcare reform has inspired is the debate about what role the federal government should have in the lives of its citizens.  As we have had increased government intervention in our financial institutions, automotive industry and other private enterprise, Americans are right to worry about the ever-increasing role of the federal government in our daily lives.    

It is this fear that is not so subliminally driving public resistance toward the current healthcare legislation.  This is evidenced by the visceral reactions of participants at the much-publicized town hall meetings, the most objective polling data as well as the actions of moderate House Democrats who prevented passage of a bill before the congressional recess. 

Most progressives would have us believe that France and Germany got it right in most aspects of social and economic policy, not just healthcare.  These are people who truly believe in the democratic socialist construct which is the basis for most Western European governments.  The net result is a society that heavily relies on government from cradle to grave and to whom government, not private industry or innovation, drives economic growth and prosperity, and where there is minimal incentive for productivity. The goal is to make most people happy enough where they won’t complain that the government runs their lives.

Is this what we want for America?  Did we declare our independence to be a model for liberty, individual freedom and representative government or to be the followers of models that were politically, socially, morally and economically inferior? 

We now know that many Members of Congress seem to have an aversion to reading the legislation that they seem so eager to pass.  In the cases of the trillion dollar stimulus package and trillion dollar healthcare bill(s), the legislation exceeds 1,000 pages.  A more sympathetic observer might understand a legislator’s reluctance.  In the spirit of mutual understanding and good old American compassion, I would like to suggest an alternate read that might offer a better understanding of our nation’s principles and how our government was intended to work.  It is the US Constitution.  When you include the Bill of Rights and the Letter of Transmittal, it is a mere six pages long.

Our founders never intended for the federal government to exceed certain functions, and in cases where government was to have an expanded role, it was to be left up to the states.  This principle is more commonly known as Article X in the Bill of Rights. 

During the Bush Administration’s war on terror, civil libertarians and other progressive interest groups where outraged by the way our enemy combatants were interrogated, and laws were changed to bring combating terrorism on parody with fighting organized crime.  Critics still squawk at the costs of establishing a homeland security infrastructure, fighting the Iraq war and pursuing the war on terror worldwide.  Meanwhile, defending our nation against enemies foreign and domestic is as constitutional a role and moral obligation as exists for our federal government. 

Ironically, it is many of the same progressives who see no problem in a government takeover of functions that the free enterprise system, while imperfect, can handle more equitably, efficiently and effectively.   Maybe while the president takes some time to relax during his upcoming vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, other lawmakers can devote a little time to getting acquainted with the Constitution.