I don't think the GOP or the Tea Party is "anti-government".
More likely, they want the Federal government to adhere to the enumerated powers as written in Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Regardless of what terms you'd like to put it in, the real-world result is the same.
We've got a thread right now on relief for hurricane Sandy. One would think that actually paying out on the flood insurance that the government made these people buy would be a given. One would think it would be bipartisan. But no, it's been delayed and delayed, and there was pressure not to even pay out on people's flood insurance claims, because, quote "Congress should not allow the federal government to be involved in the flood insurance industry in the first place."
To those people, I say, "Look, assholes, regardless of whether or not you think congress SHOULD have set up flood insurance, fact is, they did. Now pay the fuck up so that people can get their lives back together."
We've seen the same argument with gays in the military. The Republican nominees this time around were unified in their belief that the military should not recognize/support ANY sexual orientation, and to write laws forcing them to recognize same-sex marriage would change that. (The ol' "special privileges" argument.)
Of course, that ignores our current reality, wherein the military actually DOES recognize and support heterosexual norms, by having policies regarding married couples (among other things) in place.
Regardless of how you think things *should* be, we need lawmakers who vote based on how things *are.* If you're refusing to pay out on insurance claims because you don't think congress should have offered insurance, you're ignoring reality and causing real life, actual harm to living human beings based on what you - personally - think the law *should* be.
You are hampering the job of government because you don't think it should be doing the job it's doing. And I don't care if you want to call that anti-government or being a strict constitutionalist or whatnot, when you're making funding and enforcement decisions not based on the actual merits, the actual situation, or the actual needs, but instead on how you think the world "ought" to be, you're being an obstructionist asshole.
And no matter what you call it, it's damned hard to negotiate with someone who would be fine and dandy watching us all go over the cliff, and watching Sandy victims struggle just to get by day-to-day in the aftermath of a hurricane they SUPPOSEDLY had insurance for.