Limiting government after September 11.

• Author: Palmer, Tom G.
• Position: National Affairs

WHAT ARE the likely long-term effects on American government of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11? What do changes in polls about "trust in government" mean? How should advocates of limited government respond to the changes brought about by the attacks?

Not surprisingly, some observers see the ultimate outcome of the attacks as bigger and more-powerful government. For example, Sen. Charles Schumer (D.-N.Y.) declared that "the era of a shrinking Federal government is over" and proposed creating a "`new' New Deal." Comparing the present with the mid 1930s, Schumer said, "For the foreseeable future, the Federal government will have to grow."

Schumer is quite pleased at the prospect. Regardless of whether a "new" New Deal is appropriate to defeat terrorism, the attacks may spur increases in government power. Historical studies show that government tends to grow both in power and in size during wartime. World Wars I and II and the Cold War provided tremendous opportunities for growth in government power and size, as historians Robert Higgs and Charlotte Twight have thoroughly documented.

As evidence of the possibilities, we have only to turn to Pres. Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, in which he promised, "We'll increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters." The heroism of police and firefighters in responding to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is presented as sufficient reason to promote Federal funding (and inevitably some control) of what has always been considered a responsibility of local government. According to the President, "Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods."

Moreover, in a speech before the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Bush observed that "this nation has got to eat" and thus that farm subsidies are a national security issue: "It's in our national security interests that we be able to feed ourselves. Thank goodness we don't have to rely on somebody else's meat to make sure our people are healthy and well-fed."

If police and fire departments are to be federalized, and if paying cattlemen to raise beef is a matter of national security, what is to be left to local government or to the voluntary efforts of free people? Virtually every special interest in Washington has been hard at work crafting specious justifications for more subsidies on the grounds that they will be helpful in combating terrorism. As White House spokesman Ari Fleischer has noted, Washington is filled with an "unlimited number of groups coming out of the woodwork seeking money." Meanwhile, Congress has responded. Following Sept. 11, a Congress determined to protect the nation moved quickly to increase the Federal peanut subsidy by $284,000,000. Americans can now rest assured that every additional peanut subsidized by the taxpayer will be another peanut at work fighting terrorism.

Increased vigilance will be necessary to combat such raids on the public treasury, but that's the price of liberty. Budget analysts will be kept even busier than usual in the coming year.

Many pundits cite the surge in "trust in government" in the biennial National Election Studies poll taken after Sept. 11 as evidence of a profound change in public attitudes toward government. Since 1958, the NES has asked Americans, "How much of the time do you think you can trust government in Washington to do what is right--just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" When the question was put to respondents after the terrorist attacks, 60% answered "just about always" or "most of the time"--an increase of 16% above the previous poll and the highest level in 30 years. Other polls showed similar responses, although levels have fallen in subsequent months. The sharp jump in the public's trust in government has been celebrated by advocates of expanding governmental power, after years of bemoaning low levels of such trust.

However, there seems to be little correlation between "trust in government," as measured by the NES poll, and the actual size of government, attitudes...