I have been puzzling over the following remark by Cliven Bundy, who has objected to the granting of government subsidies while arguing for no-cost use of government lands. As quoted in Barro/NYT:
Where is our colored brother? Where is our Mexican brother? Where is our Chinese [brother]? Where are they? They’re just as much American as we are, and they’re not with us. If they’re not with us, they’re going to be against us.”
I have been wondering who constituted “us” and who constituted “them”. Here is Barro’s interpretation:
Mr. Bundy, weirdly, is onto something here. The rush to stand with Mr. Bundy against the Bureau of Land Management is the latest incarnation of conservative antigovernment messaging. And nonwhites are not interested, because a gut-level aversion to the government is almost exclusively a white phenomenon.
A 2011 National Journal poll found that 42 percent of white respondents agreed with the statement, “Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” Just 17 percent of blacks, 16 percent of Asians and 25 percent of Hispanics agreed. In 2011 and 2012, the Pew Research Center found that 55 percent of Asian-Americans and fully 75 percent of Hispanic-Americans say they prefer a bigger government providing more services over a smaller one providing fewer services, compared with just 41 percent of the general population.
A purely interest-group based interpretation would argue that these groups hold these positions due to the over-representation in lower income households. However, as noted in this post, such a characterization does not seem to apply to Asian-Americans.
If I have any difficulty with Mr. Barro’s interpretation, it arises from the following observation: As has been amply documented, those groups that object to TANF and food stamp expenditures seldom seem to be so exercised about Medicare expenditures. This suggests to me that the point is not an objection to government expenditures per se, but rather an objection to expenditures falling upon a different group. For instance, the perceived right to exemption from grazing fees for use of Federal lands makes perfect sense if one believes those are a proper entitlement. It’s a kind of tautological worldview, but I think it is a plausible model for explaining the seeming internal contradictions of such statements as “keep your government hands off my Medicare” 
Personally, my view is that I have a right to drive and park a car in any manner I wish, and imposition of car licensing fees, and fines for speeding and parking in areas marked as no-parking is an abrogation of my rights (once again, for the benefit of the humor impaired, I’m just kidding).