We get a proper sense of play pretend politics when we take a gander at the conservative "we want small government" canard.
It could also be called a red herring, ruse, or false premise based "argument".
It was scripted long ago in the fairy tale about Goldilocks and the Three Bears; a bedtime story they conflate with the size of government.
You know the routine, "too small" for me, "too big" for me, or "just my size"?
The obvious itself solves this problem, too small is not good, too big is not good, but the proper size to serve the people is where the merit is.
That is why the U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years; it is to adjust the size of government.
It gives the states a number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, based upon that census.
It seems axiomatic that the size of government periodically needs to be adjusted to fit the constantly changing size of the population it serves.
The static size argument, a.k.a. the one size fits all argument, is based on civic ignorance.
The bloviating that "small government conservatives" err on and on about would have been cleansed from their ill informed understanding with a lowly Civics 101 class down at the local community college.
The state governments can likewise adjust their "size" (services, utilities, etc.) to match the needs of their own state residents, based on that periodic census, and state-specific factors.
The corporations went through a fad, based on this cognitive worm hole some time back, when they got into "downsizing", "upsizing", and "right sizing".
When the curtain closed it was obvious that it was all a farce brought on by greedy corporate marauders, who were deciding how many good jobs to whack from a corporation after a "hostile takeover", then suck the blood from the stock of that company when it temporarily surged following their false declaration that they had done a good thing.
When the stock fell after they had plundered the place, when the dust settled, quite often many faithful employees and stockholders were unfairly harmed.
Another thing we have mentioned lately is that when neoCons use the word "government" they do not include the military.
It appears that this is evidence of an emotional insecurity of some sort, which has its genesis in malfunctioning cognition.
Like a small duckling "adopting" a cat or dog as its parent.
When these individuals transferred their subconscious parental recognition dynamics toward government, instead of using academics they use dysfunctional feelings which corrupted their understanding.
This psychological dysfunction in their cognition ends up misshaping their vision into nonsensical Sarah Palinisms.
Hypocrisy is another side effect of their lack of proper adjustment, because they preach "fiscal conservatism" without knowing its meaning; their understanding having been warped, the academic meaning of fiscal conservatism does not carry through.
To them "fiscal conservatism" means "rout regulations", "shut down domestic programs", and "inflate the size of the military" wildly out of proportion.
Their psychological dysfunction then brings the inevitable we have been suffering through: financial disasters and the loss of U.S. reputation.
Their personality causes a response, to the damage they caused to millions, not unlike the comic character "Gilly" on Saturday Night Live: a timid "sahwie".
I for one am sick and tired of their "psycho talk", as Ed Shultz likes to call it.