"Big" Government vs. "Strong" Government

This is a very important distinction to make, to explain, and to insist upon when arguing not just with liberals, but with fellow conservatives as well.

Because our national government has grown malignantly over the past 75-80 years, constitutionally-minded Americans strenuously, and rightly, oppose any further metastasis.  In fact, we prescribe--STAT!--radiation treatment, chemo-therapy, and radical surgery, all three at once if necessary.  The patient's very life is at stake.

The problem with this position, however, is that it can appear to be, and often is caricatured as such by political opponents, if not outright anarchist, at least fundamentally libertarian in nature, a not-so-secret desire for the withering away altogether of Washington D.C.  (Stop licking your lips, you know what I mean.)

A strong central government is both necessary and good for the health and welfare of these United States.  That which it is constitutionally authorized to do, as originally understood, it should do both well and vigorously.

Big government has little to do with strong government, however.  In fact, one might argue, and I often do, that the bigger a government becomes, the weaker it gets.  The more it promises to be all things to all people, the less it possibly can deliver.  As a result, respect for it weakens and, therefore, it weakens as well.

Anyway, this is all a long way around to recommending a piece by Jeffrey Lord in which he asks, "What is a Republican President?"  His answer, with a lot of good history thrown in, arrives at this, as I say, very important distinction.