As Newt Gingrich and his lackeys attempt to change America, their most radical measures are not the punitive and reactionary proposals in the Contract With America, but their attempts to reshape, restrict and control popular opinion. These Republicans realize that their agenda is threatened more by the ideals and attitudes of the American people than by congressional Democratic resistance. They are most distressed by a simple, fundamental belief that the public stubbornly clings to--that the government has a responsibility to promote social welfare, especially for its most disadvantaged citizens. While House Republicans ram cuts in antipoverty programs through Congress, 65 percent of the American people still support government programs for the poor. Only a handful of people support reducing social spending in education or for children, making the Republican "mandate" seem even more illusionary.

Two weeks ago, Gingrich blamed "socialist" on newspaper editorial boards for promoting ideas "that only make sense if people believe that government's good and the free market is bad." Gingrich claimed that these "socialists" were the "mortal enemy" of Republicans and their agenda. His statement not only echoes McCarthyism, but also reflects the simplistic conservative view of good and bad. Of course, this idea is not new; Republicans are still fond of quoting Ronald Reagan's statement that "government is the problem." But like too many tenets of conservatism, the crusade against "big government" is grossly hypocritical.

Republicans are only willing to wield the budget axe against largely defenseless constituencies, such as children, the poor and minorities. Labor Secretary Robert Reich has identified $114 billion in Federal spending and subsidies that qualify as corporate welfare, yet Republicans focus on reducing entitlement spending. An analysis of tax breaks granted to major corporations provides further evidence that the Federal Government's worst sin is not bankrolling a welfare state for the poor. Rather, as M.I.T. Professor Noam Chomsky points out, the Federal Government maintains a "nanny state" for the rich--providing public subsidies to fund private profits throughout the economy, from the defense industry to agribusiness.

For example, the bloated, wasteful Pentagon is not considered to be part of "big government." Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union challenge U.S. security, and despite their neo-isolationist stance, Republicans propose a $60 billion dollar increase in defense spending. Ironically, the Food Stamps program may survive draconian reductions since it is considered to benefit farmers and the agricultural industry, not the poor.

Thus, under guises such as promoting fiscal responsibility or combatting "socialism," Gingrich and his minions urge Americans to reject their conceptions of the government's responsibility. Previously, only Third World countries have been forced to accept such repressive notions. Declassified Cold War documents state that a major goal of U.S. foreign policy has been preventing the spread of the idea that the government should promote social welfare.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy planners, the military and the intelligence community consistently thwarted popular social reform movements in the Third World and backed brutal right-wing dictators. Countries that followed the U.S. model for development ended up with stupendous degrees of economic inequality--usually in he form of a tiny, super-rich elite and a mass of destitute people.

The U.S. already tolerates an unacceptable level of inequality, especially compared to our industrialized counterparts. Life expectancy and infant mortality rates in our ghettoes are on par with countries like Bangladesh. Reversing a half-century of narrowing inequality, Reagan-Bush policies pushed America towards even greater economic disparity. If the Republicans again succeed in limiting the government's already feeble attempts to empower the disadvantaged, the resulting misery and unrest may destroy American society. The American people cannot afford to let the government abandon its obligations.

David W. Brown' s column appears on alternate Wednesday