"Well, if you put it that way..."

Over at The Weekly Standard, Andrew Ferguson has written an outstanding piece about how Americans are decidedly not European-style statists after all, no matter how many liberal, and some conservative, commentators insist otherwise. But the article's greatest service, as far as I'm concerned, is that it provides an easy way to counter almost every poll that indicates we do indeed want bigger and more expansive government.

Ferguson points out that most polling on this subject is done in a very general way that asks only whether or not the government should do something about issue X. Left in that largely undefined form, they get a predictably high response in the "Yea, government should do something about that" category. The reason is that the benefits are implied, while the costs are not. If, by contrast, they were to ask the same question but include as well the probable costs of government action, then they would get an entirely different result.

Do you want government-run health care? Sure, I dunno, maybe. Do you want government-run health care if it's more expensive, of poorer quality, will likely lead to rationing, and you'll lose your right to a free-market alternative in the process? Hell no!

Conservative politicians should memorize this response, this kind of response. Heck, all of us should.