Limited Government – A Terrible Idea

Limited Government: The “nanny state” and Political Correctness

Republicans love to talk about limited government. It is always at the top of their wish list. But limited government is code for many different things. To some who feel that the government has become too invasive in our private lives, the old “nanny state” meme blames bleeding heart liberals for trying to wrap people in a protective bunting of rules and regulation. Perhaps it began with seat belts or car seats or work safety oversight (OSHA) but, according to some, it turned into one of those rubber band balls that stay small for a while and then grow more rapidly in size and complexity. Doesn’t really matter how it began, there were Americans who felt that these rules made them feel like they were living in a “petty” dictatorship, Authoritarianism Lite. This all seems a bit hyperbolic now given the real authoritarianism which is a constant risk in the administration of 45.

Lumped in with these safety laws were the increasing admonitions to use language that is “politically correct” or inoffensive to all of the diverse groups that make up America. Independent-minded Americans have lost it. They do not want to “knuckle under” to the free speech police. They don’t care if it serves the interests of civility and kindness and the humane treatment of others. They already agreed to call Indians “Native Americans”, but now they were supposed to say “indigenous people”. It was a bridge too far for some. These linguistic battles have not served to unite us, that’s for certain.

Now we are in a battle, fomented by GOP propaganda, of “real Americans” versus other ethnic groups, which could easily end with various “tribes” retreating to separate corners, leaving Americans with a prolonged culture war. Our electoral college gave us a President who flaunts his right to be politically incorrect, but it is taking the word civil out of civilization.

Federalism, Constitutional Purity and States Rights

However these things are not what other, often more powerful, Republicans are saying when they talk about limited government. And there are two sides to how limited government would look if Republicans actually got their wish. Idealistically Republicans say that this is about restoring Constitutional “purity”. They believe we have wandered too far from the intentions of our forefathers. The Constitution gives the federal government the right to write laws, pass laws, and pass judgment on the constitutionality of those laws. But purists (fundamentalists) say that the Constitution gives the federal government the right to rule the nation only in a few areas, mainly military concerns and foreign relations, and that all rights not designated to the federal government belong to the states.

They know the Federalists (state’s rights) faction lost their original argument to make America a loose affiliation of strong states under a weak national government back in the 18th century. Although our forefathers did decide to go with a stronger federal government today’s Republicans are reviving the old Federalist arguments, and they would like to ditch the conclusion our forefathers reached and become strict Federalists. Of course this means throwing out about two centuries of law and tradition and basically starting from scratch. It also means that states would begin to look more like independent nations. You might need a visa one day to travel to another state. It seems like a pretty extreme way to avoid public health care (and a few other things Republicans don’t like).

The first order of business of modern Federalists was to get Republicans in control of the United States government so they could dismantle it. They were aided in this by having some very rich industrialists on their side who stood to benefit from all the deregulation which would accompany this reorganization. These industrialists either formed a web of think tanks and Conservative groups or found ways to connect groups that already existed and were like-minded. Right wing groups met at yearly gatherings and eventually formulated an ideology and a plan of action to implement that ideology. Their machinations have been amazingly successful. The Republicans now own all three branches of our government.

Trump has been surprisingly helpful in this endeavor to tame the sprawl of the federal government. He has done this inadvertently because he wants to save America all by himself. He needs to be a hero. Even if he is perceived by many as incompetent or as a villain, if he just concentrates on his own followers he is the hero he aspires to be. He must have to delegate tasks within his businesses, but he does not want to delegate tasks in government. He doesn’t trust civil servants. Out of tradition and law they pursue objectives set by previous presidents. He likes to lead through placing his henchmen, who have pledged their loyalty to him and him alone, in offices that have the names of real American agencies but which no longer function as the original entities did. These agencies and offices are now are part of the Trump spiderweb and do Trump’s business. As a result he does not need to fill positions in these agencies or offices. Staff numbers are going down. It is becoming impossible to rely on civil servants completing routine tasks to keep government as we have known it functioning. Fewer government employees equals limited government. Et voila. Winning.

More About State’s Rights

State’s Rights was a battle cry of Democrats when the Democrats consisted of the people who are now Republicans, and is still the oft-repeated refrain of the Republicans since the Civil War and Reconstruction. Americans who cry the loudest about restoring the rights of states seem concentrated in the Southern and the Western states. People claim to love the rights of the poor usurped states whenever they want something that is opposed to what the majority of the nation wants.

Southerners were beaten in the Civil War but, in a sense they felt a terrible anger about it and their spirits refused to accept it. They loved their general, General Lee, they loved their Southern plantation culture; they loved their wealth and their lifestyle. They knew that the end of slavery would be the end of the plantation system. There were plenty of examples in the nearby islands in the Caribbean. That pride was so strong that it has been kept alive to this day and even romanticized by many Americans.

Justice was done but it has always been an uneasy and contentious justice and we have still made no real peace with it for many, many reasons most of which fall under the heading of racism. But when Southerners lost the Civil War and lost “their property” they went crazy and lost all humanity in a lust for vengeance and punishment. Whenever freed slaves tried to use the freedoms they had recently won, especially to vote or hold public office or own land, they were terrorized, viciously attacked and often slaughtered. Freedom has been won piece by tiny piece with spilled blood and dashed hopes.

Posse Comitatus

The Southerners balked under Federal attempts to control Reconstruction in the South. They argued that state and local government should have control over what was happening in the South. The federal government, experiencing some scandal and turmoil of its own, capitulated and gave local sheriffs power to rule their own domains. The rest of the nation then turned their backs on the mayhem that ensued.

Once that battle for power was won it has used precedent to justify some fairly rebellious behaviors. Most recently it reared its ugly head in the Cliven Bundy matter. Westerners resent that so much land has been designated as federal land, although there has not been any big rush to develop most of the land the government protects, or hoards (depending on your point of view). When the government decided to clamp down on Mr. Bundy, a rancher who grazed his cattle for free on government land that others paid a fee to graze their cattle on, Mr. Bundy refused to accept the power of the federal government and appealed to the superior power of the local sheriff that hails back to those very post-Reconstruction days that we have been talking about.

During Cliven Bundy’s confounding stand Rachel Maddow went over the historical basis for this claim written in the Posse Comitatus Law. The militia movement, which has similar roots, and which has been growing in America along with the stubborn power of the NRA, revealed itself when people showed up with long guns, lying prone on US highways pointing those rifles through concrete road barriers at federal officers. It was a shocking stand-off and the federal government backed down to avoid escalating the matter with killings. That’s some of the ideological background on limited government. Behind the bizarre ideological rationale is an ersatz economic argument for limited government

The Ayn Rand Justification/Rationalization for Limited Government

With the advent of the Tea Party we began to hear new arguments for limited government. These arguments were based in money, economics, finance. America was changing. The factories which gave people good salaries without a college education had flown the coop, gone on a World Tour. People were not feeling quite so flush. Then they lost their houses in what was a scandal of bad risks by banks and the stock market, a bid for short-term profit over long-term fiscal health. The victims got spanked but the big dogs, for the most part, got off with a hand slap. They are already at their scams again.

People decided that they were unhappy with the way their taxes were being used. They had a little help from Republicans who supposedly backed the Tea Party folks, Republicans like Paul Ryan who read a seminal book by Ayn Rand in college or high school and decided that spreading Rand’s gospel suited the dilemma of those in the Tea Party and, incidentally, the goals of the Republican Party re limited government. A marriage made in one man’s mind.

I don’t like or respect Paul Ryan but even I must admit that his message caught on like a wildfire and is, even now, changing America beyond recognition. What he said that appealed to so many, was this – social government programs do not help people who are down and out, they actually hurt them. These programs keep people down and turn them into permanent dependents. We need to stop funding social programs (which would, in theory, cut taxes) – no welfare, no food stamps, no Medicaid, no Medicare, no Social Security, no federal control over or funding of education.

Socialism

I always say that you can’t have socialism in a democracy because we the people pay our taxes and we say how the money will be used and that makes social programs democratic, not socialist. But the new truth is that we the people don’t contribute enough taxes to pay for the enormous military that “patriots” clamor for and for the social programs that serve as safety nets for we the people in times of trouble or need.

Without the 1% Americans are basically poor. If these miserly folks no longer want to pay taxes that will be used for people who don’t work (or can’t work) then we the people are screwed. Why we have given all these wealthy people all our money is now a moot point. The deed is done and they will use any reasoning necessary to claim that they are entitled to it. They do not mind turning America into a third world country because they plan to live above it all. All of America has now become colonized by these rich few. The right has managed to push the left to the far left and when they express fears of socialism now it is because socialism may be our only way out of  all this planned inequality.

Conclusions

We are clearly on a path to limited government in all its manifestations. I am guessing that we will not like it one little bit if it comes to pass. That dangerous mob, the vociferous left, created as backlash to an extreme right wing, may someday save us from the chaos of running each state as an independent entity and each local government as a fiefdom. Pick the Dems (the Dims) to save us from having to take a sad detour into “limited government”.  (I’m confused, how can you be dim and a dangerous mob at one and the same time.) “Limited government” is an outdated concept and it belongs in the oubliette of history.

Photo Credits: From a Google Image Search – Medium, twenty48.net

The Nanny State – Still?

One thing we can admire about Conservatives is their
consistency. They have not let up on their criticism of the Nanny State, the
Takers versus the Makers, since Obama took office. Although the taker-maker
argument lines up with the GOP love affair with small government, I never
remember hearing this piece of bogus wisdom during Bush’s reign, despite the
fact that the safety net was pretty much exactly the same as it is today. It is
true that the recession, still with us since 2009, is ratcheting up the need and
therefore the demand for safety net services. One example is the greatly
increased reliance on food stamps.
I think we have to be very careful to avoid giving what
sounds like a perfectly logical argument too much power. The theory goes that
when you allow the government to take care of the poor, old, disabled, and
sick, when the government provides a safety net to prevent people in a society
from “bottoming out”, the very system that saves people will turn them into
permanent government dependants. We can all agree that there may be some truth
to this. We all know people who we believe are abusing the system. We all know
families whose economic position has not changed in generations and who seem to
be content with government support, even though we know such support comes with
lots of red tape, a loss of privacy, and negative judgment from the rest of
society. It is also clear that government support does not usually provide a
very comfortable or upscale lifestyle.
You must have read some Dickens. Charles Dickens wrote about
London at a time when the poor, sick, and disabled, had little, if any
assistance. Churches sometimes helped but were so moralistic and judgmental
that most of the poor steered clear. Rich ladies often assisted the poor with their
charitable activities, but they also invaded the privacy of those they assisted
and many avoided them to keep a bit of autonomy. Children of poor parents often
lived in the streets, begged, stole, were used by unscrupulous people, were
ill-clothed, ill-fed, ill-treated and unhealthy. Their lives and the lives of
their parents were harsh and short. And their misery had a great effect on the
whole of London. Their misery created health hazards, made the streets dirty
and dangerous, and made some compassionate Londoners sad. In these ways even
the wealthy were affected by the poverty at the lowest economic levels of the
city.
Wealthy people can enjoy their wealth more when there is
less misery and crime among the poorest members of a society. The wealthy, and our
governments which are usually, however democratic, run by the wealthy, have slowly
learned that propping up those at the bottom made life more bearable and
hygienic for everyone. It would be wrong to assume that government programs for
the less fortunate are a totally altruistic endeavor. I don’t think that the
movement to get rid of these programs is founded on an effort to save
unfortunates from themselves, as proponents suggest. Once again, selfish
interests are probably at the bottom of this movement which has come out
of  Conservative America, this movement
whose goals are to help us become more self-sufficient and thereby to make us
proud of our productivity and ingenuity. At this juncture it looks more like
the wealthy are tired of paying taxes that they feel are being used to
subsidize the sloth of people who have learned how to avoid working for a
living. If we were not so divided, we could take a really good look at this
whole issue of the nanny state and we could probably find a lot of savings and
we could find some ways to make sure that aid got to the truly needy. We could
launch a committee to conduct an in-depth study of the social safety net. We
could answer all the nagging questions like:

           ·        Should we do away with the “so-called” nanny
state?

           ·        
Should we do away with all of it, or some of it?
           ·        
What will America be like if we do?
           ·        
Does the safety net encourage malingering and
suppress initiative?
           ·        
What about the children?
           ·        
What about those who are not inspired by
adversity?
           ·        
Can we come up with better ways to sort those
who are truly needy from those
                  who know how to scam the system?

           ·        
What are the advantages and disadvantage of
privatizing?
           ·        
Will privatizing be used to phase out the safety
net?
           ·        
What will we do if we, the people, can no longer
afford safety net programs?
           ·        
Do we have to cut back on compassion?
           ·        
Do we have to give up on the goal of lifting
everyone up?

I must add that there is a liberal version of the nanny
state which shows rich folks and corporations who have become dependent on
favorable government tax rates, tax loopholes and subsidies that the wealthy
would very much like to keep. If we study the bottom for signs of dependency,
we must also study whether those at the top are addicted to the same kind of
aid as those at the bottom.

(There is yet another version of the nanny state which says
that government is passing too many laws that curtail our everyday freedoms,
such as laws about drinking, wearing seat belts, smoking, eating and sugary
drinks, etc. These are the laws that fall in the category of “big brother” laws.
I don’t think these kinds of laws can be attributed to any one political party.
Some may result from our reliance on health insurance, but these nit-picky laws
are presided over by government. This is not the definition of “nanny state”
that I am discussing here, but is a possible topic for another time.)