In a front page news article the Post told readers that the debt ceiling battle was really a battle over "the size and role of government." Is this something their mother told them?
I didn't see anyone in this debate arguing for "big government." If there is anyone in the country who supports big government as a matter of principle, they have a seriously losing electoral position.
In the real world the battle is over specific programs. And, apart from the military, there is overwhelming support for most of what the government spends money on -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits -- across the political spectrum. Everyone from liberal Democrats to Tea Party Republicans strongly supports these programs.
In fact, there is only a small minority that really wants to see these programs cut back in a major way. Of course this minority is extremely powerful since it includes much of Wall Street and major news outlets, like the Washington Post.
It helps to advance the agenda of those who want to cut the major social programs to mischaracterize the issue as a debate over the size and role of government. This can create serious divisions among the programs' supporters. However, if the debate is more accurately described as one between people who support social programs and those who oppose them, then the Washington Post's position has much less chance of succeeding.
(Only one link allowed per comment)