N THE LAST century, the principles of individual liberty and small government were often declared dead and obsolete. Yet as the new millennium begins, these ideals still have powerful appeal.
While some - including Al Gore - would give the government credit for our unprecedented prosperity, most Americans remain skeptical. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 60 percent would rather have a smaller government with fewer services than a bigger government with more services. (While men are more likely to take this view, it is endorsed by more than half of women.)
In Pew Research Center surveys, more than two-thirds agree that government is nearly always wasteful and inefficient. Proposals that would give less control to the government and more to individuals, from school vouchers to Social Security privatization, enjoy growing support.
Are we wrong to mistrust the state? Much-touted big-government success stories, such as universal health care in Canada, often turn out to have a seamy side (long waiting lists for medical procedures, overcrowded hospitals, dangerously outdated medical equipment). Meanwhile, claims about the alleged perils of government downsizing often turn out to be spectacularly wrong.
Recently, many big-government apologists have blamed airline deregulation for turning air travel into a nightmare of crowded skies and endless flight delays. But the finger-pointing is in the wrong direction. Deregulation succeeded in making air fares low enough to be affordable for the average American, tripling the annual number of passengers since 1978. However, the government-run air traffic control system has not kept up with the higher volume of air traffic, and airport expansion has been stymied by bureaucratic red tape.
Unfortunately, neither of the major parties is a consistent champion of individual liberty. Carla Howell, the businesswoman who is running for the US Senate in Massachusetts on the Libertarian Party ticket and the slogan ''Small government is beautiful,'' charges that Republicans and Democrats alike ''support Big Government programs, high taxes, and more and more intrusions into our business and personal lives.'' She has a point.
Generally, it seems that liberal Democrats want the government out of our bedrooms and in our pocketbooks while conservative Republicans want the reverse. Liberals support the individual's right to choose abortion or to live with a same-sex partner; conservatives support an individual's right to own a gun, or to choose at which school to spend the public money allocated for her children's education. And, of course, both Republicans and Democrats enthusiastically support the drug war, which has resulted in massive violations of civil liberties and long prison terms for thousands of men and women for minor victimless crimes.
The same conservatives who so often slam liberal politicians and judges for thwarting the will of the people applauded the Clinton administration's decision to thwart the will of voters in six states who approved the legalization of marijuana for medical use.
The Libertarian Party - which usually gets no more than half of 1 percent of the vote in presidential elections - has the virtue of being consistent in its defense of liberty: It wants the state to keep its hands off our wallets, our guns, and our bodies (including whatever substances we may choose to put in our bodies). Unfortunately, the Libertarians take these principles to utopian extremes, seeking less to limit government than to smash it. They support eventual repeal of all taxation and would eliminate even minimal health and safety regulations, all government assistance to the poor, and public schools.
A libertarian streak, with a small ''l,'' runs deep in American culture; we cherish our right to be left alone, and we know freedom entails risks. Still, only about one-10th of Americans rate themselves as being on the far end of the libertarian scale when it comes to reducing the role of government, and even among this 10 percent, most would probably think the Libertarian Party platform is way off the scale.
Where does that leave voters who would like to see realistic prospects for reducing government involvement in our personal and economic lives? Are we stuck with only bad choices? There may be grounds for cautious optimism.
In the 2000 election, Republican campaign rhetoric has largely avoided themes of government-enforced moralism and focused on lower taxes, smaller government, individual choice, and personal empowerment.
This pro-freedom message seems to be working surprisingly well, even though the messenger can't articulate it with much eloquence or conviction and even though the Democratic candidate has the booming economy on his side. Maybe libertarianism with a small ''l'' is in ascendancy after all.
Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
