This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
It must be hard to manage something you don't believe in. A vegetarian in charge of a slaughterhouse. A pacifist commanding an armored division. A Utah Republican running for public office.
Thus does Gary Herbert, governor of Utah, risk coming across like a Bible salesman at an atheist convention when he tries to show off his state's rating as the "best managed state." Herbert's hope for renomination depends on winning the favor of a party electorate that often seems to believe that government is never really managed. Just starved into submission.
The website platforms of the five people running against Herbert in the Republican convention/primary cycle stress a call for less government and less spending, even while promising to do such (potentially very expensive) things as improve education and wrestle control of millions of acres of public land from the federal government. And, in the belief that government is at best incompetent, and at worst a clear and present danger, the candidates stress their devotion to everyone's Second Amendment right to pack heat.
Herbert is on board with all that, too, of course. And, awkward as it might be for an incumbent, he could also join the government-can't-do-anything-right chorus by pointing to a couple of scandals that have broken within his own administration in just the past few days.
First, we found out that an excessively porous firewall on some state computers allowed hackers access to the personal information of some 780,000 Utahns, including 255,000 Social Security numbers. An audit has been ordered.
Then, come to find out that the official estimate for the amount of money needed to fund enrollment growth in Utah's public schools next fiscal year was off the mark by some $25 million. The funding will be made up out of cash carry-over reserves, and two of the Education Department's top finance officials have counted their last bean.
Whomever Republicans choose to carry their standard into the November election — a standard which, history suggests, is all but a guarantee of victory — it will be interesting to watch the victor of the anti-government primary turn around and convince us that he is the ideal candidate to run our government.
There will always be valid arguments to be had over whether taxes are too high, too low or too skewed for or against the rich. Whether government has overstepped its bounds here or failed in its duties there. Whether certain policies are best made uniform throughout a nation or a state or are best left up to local control.
What is not arguable is that we have a government — local, state and federal — and that it does things we need done. The most obvious are such things as roads, schools and fire departments, even though, at different points in human history, those services have been provided by private entities instead, though usually at a cost in both money and dependence upon people we can't vote for, or against.
The balancing act is seldom simple, and is often filled with irony. A mistrust of government, for example, can lead to a drive to keep it small. But a small government may actually be less trustworthy than a larger one, if what the small one lacks are things like internal auditors, inspectors general and legislative staff expertise. (See: Alcoholic Beverage Control, Utah Department of.)
On the other side, excessive comfort with big government can lead to bureaucratic arteriosclerosis, resulting in a government that can't deliver even the most basic services.
Choosing one's government officials on the basis of who hates government the most is like going to a doctor who refuses to wash his hands. The rebelliousness may be endearing, but the risk is too great.
@debatestate