Government bashing: it's easy, it works, and conservatives fall back on it all the time.
Here are the most basic reasons why it is so effective:
1) Given that our political system is set up to slow down legislation (to ensure it is well thought out), it is extremely easy for a politician to claim the government is ineffective, then prove their point by preventing anything from getting done. It does not carry any political risks, especially for Senators who still have the option to anonymously filibuster through the "secret hold", and it is virtually impossible to counter. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to argue that government can be effective (despite current problems with it), then take power and prove your point, even if you didn't have an entire party built around the notion that the government is incompetent opposing you.
2) There is also a long history of sexy, radical groups resisting authoritative governments. American culture has been opposed to the idea of an authoritarian government since its beginnings, then there have always been rumblings against government from moderate and extreme factions on either side of the political spectrum. Countless films, TV shows, and novels (entirely fictional or marginally based on history) draw on this radical aura by showing underground revolutionary groups taking on large, impersonal, and cruel governments. When is the last time you rented a movie about a powerful government quashing a dangerous rebellion? Everyone likes an underdog. Unfortunately, in our case, the "underdog" has been in power on and off for several decades, but this doesn't stop them from trying to claim the freedom-fighter, underground sex appeal. As for progressives, who are often tempted by left-wing discourses of resistance to the state and state violence (police!), at times it is important to remember the saying by Confucious,"I hate those who mistake insubordination for courage" (XVII, 24).
3) This point is related to the last, but still distinct: American culture has a deeply ingrained individualism, which parts of the left embrace (think DIY movements). Our ideal of self-sufficiency is omnipresent in every genre of literature, whether Jack Kerouac or Benjamin Franklin. We have been brought up to worship strong people who take care of themselves, perhaps incidentally saving the town or their family in the bargain, but we do not have a tradition of literature dedicated to people who struggle, more or less unsuccessfully, to overcome the obstacles presented to them by their environment.
This last is the most important, I think, since it allows conservatives to trigger deep emotions. Even Americans who find themselves facing dire adversity are reluctant to admit they need help. Nobody wants to be a beggar, nobody wants to accept charity, nobody wants to admit that they cannot live up to the rugged individualism our culture venerates. I know this from personal experience: my father is an agricultural worker (i.e. he does manual work on a farm he does not own). He has faced many situations where he could have used the help of a lawyer, a union, a government official, or even just a trustworthy friend; he has received unemployment benefits and probably ought to have benefited from better labor laws placing restrictions on work hours, workplace safety, and minimum wage. But time and again I have seen him resist other people trying to push him to fight for a fair deal, always saying something like "I'm fine. I don't need anyone's help. You don't need to worry about me." Even when he doesn't say anything, I can see he is deeply uncomfortable with other people discussing or even thinking about his professional situation, because he is proud of his work and doesn't want others to think he isn't a successful person. Perfectly understandable: he may not have a great retirement plan, but he does what he loves doing and he has a happy family life. If we weren't so obsessed with equating financial and personal success, we would see many of the people who might benefit from a more just economic system rightly consider themselves successful people.
For decades now progressives have let the right redefine welfare programs and the social security net in terms of government handouts. We need to push now to change the terms we use, to stress the idea of justice and ensuring a fair economic system for all. From our perspective, welfare is not charity, and it's not handouts: it's an attempt to level the playing field so that everyone gets a fair deal. Fairness is something Americans do understand—the idea of playing against a stacked deck is anathema to us; it's something we'd be willing to fight for.
I recommend reading Faulkner's "The Tall Men", which is a 9 page story about Southerners who stubbornly refuse any government aid or controls. As a metaphor for the plight of the southern poor, the head of the family has a traumatic leg wound but repeatedly refuses anesthetic and stresses that he claims full responsibility for the situation. His family also struggles with the New Deal and the government's attempts to control cotton prices by paying farmers not to produce. More than anything, I think this story shows the dire need for progressives to acknowledge and respect the fierce pride and independence of Americans and find new ways to approach the concept of government involvement in the economy that do not present themselves as charity or as a restriction on freedom. Instead of the New Deal, we need to stress the Fair Deal. What does that mean: everyone deserves health care, job security, recognition for the hard work they do (i.e. a living wage) and the obstacles they have had to overcome in their lives.
Faulkner's "The Tall Men" literaturesave2.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/william-faulkner-the-tall-men.pdf
