From the editor

What type of government do we want? Smaller? More efficient? Do we even know?

One group insists upon slashing federal responsibility to what they presume are akin to Jeffersonian levels. Of course, many in this group revere American troops, while Jefferson was wary of the formation of a U.S. Navy or standing army, considering them potential threats to liberty.

The man committed to the idea that all men are created equal held onto his slaves, fearing the loss of his personal economy. Then, one night after reading of the Missouri Compromise—the vote extending slavery coast to coast, dividing boundaries he had expanded through the Louisiana Purchase—wrote “this momentous decision, like a fire bell in the night, awakened me and filled me with terror. I considered it the knell of the union.”

Unlike the firebrand slave owners to follow, he considered it important to secure the union.

No matter—the complex and often contradictory beliefs of the founders are easily dismissed in a nation that doesn’t look too deeply into its past.

There is a group convinced regulation on industry acts as a kind of clamp, choking the ability of companies to expand, hire and spur the economy. In many instances, federal rules indeed add what might be considered unnecessary debits to the cost of doing business. New construction must adhere to standards, including wheelchair access, for example. The push toward clean coal technology would force existing facilities to refurbish, at tremendous expense. Any tweak to emissions standards causes auto manufacturers to shell out millions in an effort to fall in line.

Eliminate regulation, you wipe out these costs. Good, right?

Of course, we’ve been through this as a nation before. The first wave of modern regulation came as a result of industry abuses at the turn of the last century—read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” for a glimpse into the disturbing practices common to the era. The next sought to correct a major market crash known as the Great Depression. Big business sought to roll back these “New Deal” fixes (which, admittedly, produced positive and negative results) following the second big war. A few years of relaxed standards led to millions of dead fish drifting in Lake Erie tides and rivers catching on fire.

With no oversight, DDT was considered an efficient method of controlling insects and thalidomide a useful drug. But there are reasons neither remain in use today.

Some rules and regulations perhaps go too far—but which? And would we trust those currently in the House or Senate, those pumping money into Super PACs or funding lobbyists to decide? Should we allow tea party hardliners (not just those who agree in principle) the ultimate clout to scrap it all, forcing us to learn these lessons all over again? Who would benefit from this in the short run? Who would be harmed over the long term?

I have read that government spending can never boost the economy. Yet massive amounts of cash doled out by Washington before and during World War Two spurred thirty years of expansion.

Unusual circumstances, yes--and not something we'd wish to replicate.

Government has extended its reach over time. People advocate limits to abortion and access to contraceptives, they place curbs on tobacco and urge us to eat less meat, they attempt to legislate how we care for ranch animals or deal with the children of illegal immigrants.

Jefferson’s American dealt with few such issues (other than immigrants; read the misguided alien and sedition acts). If a rancher lost most of a herd to a natural disaster, he or she suffered the consequences without government assistance, without a farm bill.  Roads were rutted and pocked, bridges iffy and—according to P.T. Barnum—tradesmen routinely weighted down loads of grain with rocks before heading to the scale. Buyer beware.

Not that the world is more complex now. People in the small government days had plenty to worry about. We have, however, added new technologies (cars, flight, reality television) and concerns (public health, food safety, concussions in football), aspects of which do not yield themselves neatly to an unfettered market. The same people shouting for less government participation in our lives would likely call for an FCC ruling against nudity on prime time television, for instance.

Experience teaches that Americans desire greatly to reduce or to keep pet government offices. If cutting or maintaining a program benefits a certain group (or falls in line with their values), they favor the action. If another group is hurt by this, so be it. Thus--as has happened--the same people calling for an end to welfare for individuals also demand federal funds to prop up sagging businesses.

So what exactly do we want? It’s easier to rant and slavishly follow those peddling easy fixes than to answer the question honestly.