Thoughts on an article about the movement to get rid of EPA

With the success of the 30+ year concerted and lavishly funded effort promoting the twin notions that government’s motivation is always and solely self regarding, and that, without regard to motivation, government can’t or won’t do anything efficiently or competently (it’s either evil or stupid or both), given the current "opportunity" created by the deficit/debt, there's no reason not to follow on this success with the next logical step: that is, aggressively question the necessity for the entire edifice of the modern state and require a zero-based argument for the existence of every form of governmental enterprise. Because it's essentially an ideological argument - anecdotally supported and ahistorical - the terms on which we receive this challenge are particularly difficult.  

Aside from the question of the deficit, there is no valid data or historical record to support the efficacy of an across the board shrinking of the government, especially, it might be noted, in the areas most vociferously attacked, such as medical care and retirement savings. But ideology, unfortunately, is not public policy, and, notwithstanding the superficial emotional appeal of this connection, the origins of the deficit/debt have more to do with spending accomplished through tax cuts and military conflicts than with the resolution of a coherent debate on the efficacy of this or that program/area of government intervention. In other words, the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars created the deficit and ballooned the debt, and now the Republicans would like to argue that the programs they would like to cut must be cut because there isn't enough money. Logically, it's a post hoc fallacy. Politically, it's a well-laid trap. 

But it's a trap with an escape - tax reform. If Hacker and Pierson are right - and I would bet they were - the wealth and income gap that has opened up in the past 30 years (simultaneously with the broad-based attack on government) is not politically sustainable, once understood. People will not accept another Gilded Age, so another Teddy Roosevelt will arise, if he hasn't already.  Corporate tax reform - lowering overall rates and ending subsidies - and higher personal taxation of the top 1% will find a broad constituency, when the dust has cleared.

Meantime, thoughtful people who care about a country that fulfill its ideals - never mind thrives economically - will find themselves arguing the most basic points, summoning the most basic images and marshaling the most basic evidence – like why should we have child labor laws, why pollution is bad, why public education is good, why we should support the practical application of the bill of rights to all citizens, why we should have an independent judiciary, the nature of scientific evidence and how science achieves consensus and belief, etc., etc. to an intellectually ill-prepared public that has taken the benefits of a relatively clean environment, healthy food, incorruptible judges, fair judicial system, reasonably-priced medical care and free public education, not to mention 30-year fixed rate mortgages, social security, etc., etc. for granted.

In other words, some of the demons loosed in the 1960's - that government can go off the reservation, that government lies to protect itself, that government can ignore the will of the people, some of the legacies of the Cold War, Viet Nam and Watergate - the foes of government (apparently mostly big companies concentrated in certain industries) have turned on their heads, turning many, many people into resentful, history and science-free loose cannons who believe that the government, acting aggressively to solve domestic/economic problems, is always wrong, while paradoxically giving a pass to an aggressive military posture.

It’s never a good idea to lose control of the narrative, but that’s what’s happened.  Now the really tough stuff starts.