A look back in time demonstrates the pointlessness of the "big v small" rhetoric. In an editorial published not long after 9/11, Sen. Charles Schumer attempted to make the case that a return to "big government" is the only way to confront the challenges that lie ahead for our nation post September 11th.

For an illustrative example of the ambiguous nature of the phrase, Sen. Schumer noted that President Clinton did more "shrinking [of the federal government] than any other President." This statement is partially true. But, it reflects the minimal value of this ambiguous rhetoric no matter who's using it.

It is true that President Clinton did reduce the size of government. However, it is also true that the federal government spent a lot of money during that time period. Much of it on the military.  As Army Gen. Henry H. Shelton, then chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the time and then Defense Secretary Cohen noted, it was President Clinton's "fiscal policy that allowed, and his pen that signed, the largest increase in military spending in some 15 years -- historic investment in the next generation of tools and technologies, and the largest increase in military pay and benefits in a generation." Now that our troops are spread across the globe and we are still trying to track down Bin Laden and other shadowy foes, I for one am glad we spent that money and made that investment in America.  So, did the government get smaller because we cut its size or bigger because we spent more money?

By utilizing a rhetorically empty phrase like "big government" Sen. Schumer - and others (Limbaugh, etc.) who recklessly toss it around - does nothing to advance the real discussion that should be taking place.  Instead, this type of rhetoric sparks more needless, race to the bottom debates on the size of government as opposed to the real issue of how our government is run.  Case in point is the right-wing tabloid National Review's piece published the very next day entitled, "Is Chuck Schumer on Crack?" As usual, that piece contained no real discussion on actual issues, but plenty of personal animus for Schumer and a spew of useless rhetoric.  Partisan ideologues get a kick out of this type of exchange, but it does nothing to help our national debate or benefit Americans.    

Of course, the empty rhetorical question of big vs small government is really irrelevant.  Government is one area of human existence where size doesn't matter. The important point isn't whether government is big or small, the real question is whether government is working efficiently and positively impacting the people who permit it to exist: in our case, us, the American citizenry.

Much of the rhetoric is driven by people who claim to love America, but consistently deride our form of government.  At its core, their attack is based on a false claim on what government is.  They claim government is some personless machine that runs every aspect of our lives.  Obviously that is false.  

Government is not a machine. Rather, it is people getting together to make decisions about collective responsibility and how to best deal with needs and issues that impact us as individual citizens, but are impractical for us to address in our individual capacity.  Snowplowing is an example.  Instead of all of us taking turns shoveling our neighborhood streets, we pitch in through taxes and buy a big plow and pay someone to come to our streets to take care of the problem.  Homeland Security is another prime example where collective money must be spent on important services that we need, but can't afford to effectively provide for ourselves individually.  

JFK himself summed it up as follows:

"I know that there are those who want to turn everything over to the government. I don't at all. I want the individuals to meet their responsibilities. And I want the states to meet their responsibilities. But I think there is also a national responsibility. The argument has been used against every piece of social legislation in the last twenty-five years. The people of the United States individually could not have developed the Tennessee Valley; collectively they could have. A cotton farmer in Georgia or a peanut farmer or a dairy farmer in Wisconsin and Minnesota, he cannot protect himself against the forces of supply and demand in the market place; but working together in effective governmental programs he can do so. Seventeen million Americans, who live over sixty-five on an average Social Security check of about seventy-eight dollars a month, they're not able to sustain themselves individually, but they can sustain themselves through the social security system. I don't believe in big government, but I believe in effective governmental action. And I think that's the only way that the United States is going to maintain its freedom"

We need to be organized to strive towards the twin aims of our republic: national defense and domestic freedom. That's all government is, citizens coming together to work toward common goals. To get there, as JFK said, we don't need big or small  government - just good government.