At state houses all over the country, it’s back to the ’70s.

We think of the last great era of governmental activism as the 1960s. That was the decade in Washington that saw passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, establishment of Medicare and Medicaid and – at the very end of the decade — the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, and creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.

But in state capitals, the 1970s were the big decade. States began regulating land use to protect the environment and tried to prevent, though fairly unsuccessfully, sprawling development. They took on major roles in health care and education, and – when the Reagan administration sharply cut back the federal effort – entered the public housing business as well.

Many Americans alive today were not yet born when the 1970s dawned. Even those who’ve been around for awhile may not see the pressing need to roll things back to the days when paper mills could dump whatever they liked into rivers, teachers were the most underpaid profession around, and poor people couldn’t see the doctor unless the doctor was willing to barter.

You’d never know that from most of the Republican agendas now circulating in more the half the states – the ones now with GOP leadership. Republican governors unite to insist that state workers give up benefits and pension pay, but by a 2-1 margin, polls show that the public disagrees. Voters even – gasp – see increased taxes as a preferable alternative to large benefit cuts.

In Maine, the LePage administration took office vowing to unburden business from unnecessary regulations, but instead has spent considerable time trying to explain why, for instance, using chemicals that the governor says may produce “little beards” on women (wrong chemical, actually) is essential to improving commerce.

Many GOP legislators are not exactly focused, either. Among the many, many bills to roll back environmental protections – the Natural Resources Council of Maine counts 50 already, with many still to be printed – are several seeking to weaken or repeal the bottle bill.

The bottle bill? The popular, long-established, supporter-of-redemption-centers-in-every-rural-hamlet bottle bill? That one?

Yes, that one. The 1970s were indeed a long time ago, but you might think lawmakers seeking to scuttle the bottle bill would have noticed that, when the beverage industry attempted repeal through a statewide referendum in 1976, voters squashed it with an 85 percent no vote. That’s still the record for a one-sided initiative contest, surpassing even such legendary nonstarters as repealing the income tax, slashing the automobile excise tax, and getting rid of legislative term limits.

Perhaps there’s one lone constituent who asked a representative to get rid of the 5-cent deposit per bottle (15 cents for wine), but it seems more likely it was the beverage industry talking, once again.

And that’s just the problem. Republicans say they’re on the side of the much-abused taxpayer – though the taxpayers involved usually have much higher than average incomes – but most of the time they seem to do the bidding of specific industries inconvenienced by laws most Mainers think serve the public good.

There was much discussion shortly after President Obama was elected to the effect that he was misreading his mandate. Usually this was said in connection with his health care plan, which ended up being far more industry-friendly, for insurers and drug manufacturers, than anyone expected.

It’s possible, of course, to believe that further involving government in health care is a bad idea. But anyone familiar with the existing system’s manifold dysfunctions – including super-high costs and not particularly healthy citizens – would be hard pressed to say we should do nothing. And that’s pretty much, unfortunately, what opponents of “Obamacare” have put forward.

Republicans were elected to positions of responsibility in Maine and other states last November in a wave of discontent – though it can be tricky figuring out exactly what discontent means, politically.

But trying to overturn the bottle bill and retain hazardous chemicals in baby bottles is assuredly not what the voters were looking for. Aside from the lively theater such proposals provoke, there’s a serious point for the new majority to consider.

Paul LePage has four years to get things straight in terms of his own proposals for change. GOP legislators have a much shorter time. If they can’t show better discipline and greater focus than they have so far, they run the risk of splitting their own ranks and frittering away their opportunities.

The old country saying, “Don’t try to reinvent the wheel” comes to mind. So does, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”