Earlier quoted context omitted.
> empirically that's not true Feel like expanding that point? I mean shrinking government and changing society so people depend on it less is literally part of the national GOP platform. Is your argument just that they're not willing to sabotage things for political advantage? (and, if so, how are we to explain the billions spent shutting down the federal government as a negotiating tactic?)
Let's see the drug war, DHS, military, NSA, no child left behind--just to name a few. The gov increased under Reagan despite what conservatives will tell you. The GOP has been part of massive increases in gov. Why would someone in political power ever be for downsizing gov, save a few outliers? It's just pandering to the base. A short-term sabotage is not out of the question. Actually, I have a graph showing how gov…
That might necessitate a token effort somewhere to cut things but the real goal is the posture, not the results, so maximizing inefficiency isn't something they're concerned with. In most cases, they'll try to cut things which affect people who don't vote for them anyway – mass transit, funding for the poor, etc.