No they don't. They just say they do so they can get elected and expand government. Those of us who actually believe in small government* across the board are as likely to be in the Occupy Wall St. movement as the Tea Party, and we realize that neither party is anywhere near our views.

* I mean this in a literal way, that government should be no larger than necessary and no more intrusive than required. The goal is to get to a point where we can engineer intrusive, large government structures out of the picture. For example, if we were to have state and local governments running the last mile telephone network but allowing services to be provided by a host of competing businesses, we'd have a freer market with less regulation. But it would require some use of eminent domain to achieve in a way that neither party would support.

"Oh, that's just rhetoric" is not a realistic critique. Actual people shape their perspectives based on what messages come from a) people in power, and b) people they agree with. They aren't just words.

But the words and actions are entirely out of sync. The fact is that very few running for federal office have any interest in limiting federal power.

Additionally one thing I have found interesting is how folks who supported Obama during the campaign when he promised to reduce the impact of state secrets, create a more open executive, etc. have more or less continued to follow him (more often than not) as he has done the near exact opposite of his promises. Sure we can argue why Gitmo is still operating as a prison, but the executive has made an about face on the "war on terror" (after about a day in office) which quite astounding, though not as surprising as the willingness of Democratic supporters to go along with it.

Of course the excesses of the Bush and Obama years are probably why we have both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St, but that's a discussion for another time.