Getting ready for some vacation time, but during an errand run, heard the end of a story on STDs on NPR. Was struck by the realization that I never really hear about how small government conservatives really want to address that? Is that part of their government system? Part they never really think about? Or is their approach to simply tell everyone that personal responsibility rules--therefore you are on your own?
My concerns about small government are many--but one of the things that concerns me the most is what seems like an almost purposeful effort to make those things that connect us disappear. No more shared parks, or shared subsidy of those things that we all use and all benefit from. Everyone on their own.
I don't like the sound of that at all, and fear that is the unintended (at least) impact of reducing government and undermining public and progressive programs. Public health is just one of those components.
6 comments:
Move to Europe.
They're all for small government except for the military. Then the sky's the limit.
Not even the sky, if you look at the budget for satellites and orbital platforms. ;)
I think that describes the GOP better than small government conservatives. A genuine small government conservative would reduce "foreign entanglements" and probably cut military spending.
In response to the public health issues, they would probably say that charities would step in and help out.
No doubt they would say something like that, but I shudder to think of the chaos of thousands of private charities trying to coordinate a response to another flu epidemic.
I don't think they could. I worked for an agency that received funds from the United Way. Despite some generous gifts, it was not even close to what we needed to keep a decent level of services.
Post a Comment