Government II: Names

This is the second in a series of essays on government.

No reasonable person wants to abolish the government. We need some government in order to function as a civilized society - some problems can only be addressed by government. Consequently, we must let government stick its nose under the great tent of freedom, but I caution that a voracious beast lurks behind that innocent looking nose. The struggle to limit government’s size, scope, and power will never end. Our founding fathers knew that. They wisely created America with a small, limited government whose power was severely restricted, but they were wary of their own creation and feared its powers would expand. Sure enough, during the 230 intervening years, the founders’ worst nightmare has been realized. We have managed to ignore their wise counsel and allowed our government to evolve into a powerful giant bureaucracy that intrudes into every aspect of our lives. Whereas our initial limited government was run by “citizen-politicians” who answered their country’s call, today’s big government is run by professional politicians and bureaucrats. These “officials”, particularly the elected ones, often portray themselves as altruistic beneficent managers, but their actual behavior more closely resembles rulers who govern the masses. Fortunately, they are not fooling very many of us, as indicated by the polls that consistently show how much we dislike and distrust them (more on that later). We are all too familiar with big government officials, whether elected or appointed, who adopt an attitude of superiority and even antagonism toward those who pay their salaries.

Government, by its very nature, divides the population into two groups: the government and the governed - those that run the government and those that are run by the government. Today’s big government officials and advocates (especially academics) typically think of themselves as well-educated, intelligent, and intellectual - the best and the brightest. Given their sense of self-importance and the government’s great power, it is not surprising that big government officials and advocates have increasingly assumed the role of rulers or the “governing class”. Many of them believe in “statism”, a belief that sovereignty lies not with individuals but with the government, and that everyone should subordinate themselves to the needs of the state – statism, socialism ... whatever. But rarely does the media or the press refer to big government advocates as rulers, or intellectuals, or statists, or any of the other terms mentioned above. The big government advocates, including the media and the press, are careful not to use any terms that might suggest they are immodest or arrogant or power-hungry. Instead, they camouflage their actual self images by publicly referring to themselves as optimistic, open minded, and forward thinking liberals or progressives or secularists. The heart of the matter is that, no matter whether they think of themselves as the governing class, rulers, well-educated, intellectuals, best and brightest, statists, socialists, liberals, progressives, or secularists, most advocates of big government see themselves in the top echelons of the big government movement – sort of big government aristocrats. Perhaps they should be called “progressive aristocracy”.

Going back to polls, one important question begs to be addressed: if big government officials do so poorly in the polls, how do big government politicians get elected? By promising free benefits, entitlements, and other goodies. This is the time honored way that progressive politicians garner votes and support, especially from the poor, the unfortunate, and the needy - those at the lower end of the economic scale. To further cement the deal, progressives preach that the only recourse for these “victims” of “forces beyond their control” is to be “taken care of” by government largess (which the progressives of course promise to generously dole out). These promises are not always duplicitous. Many progressives honestly believe that common folks really are victims who are unable to properly care for themselves. The not-so-subtle subtext of this “victim” rhetoric is that, were we not so ignorant and poorly informed, we would all be grateful to be led and cared for by intellectually superior progressives. Listen carefully. Can you hear the unspoken corollary: that we are too dumb and lazy to care for ourselves? In any case, by continually reminding them they are victims, progressive politicians always appeal to the poor. Here’s a radical notion: instead of victimizing them, how about motivating the poor to get an education and escape the ghetto? How about fostering in the poor a sense of dignity and personal pride in their own abilities? How about celebrating the accomplishments of the many that have worked their way out of poverty? How about celebrities (starting with the President) acting like role models instead of saviors?

Another major progressive constituency is Unions. Progressive politicians easily gain Union support by pitting them against their “greedy capitalist employers”, and promising special favors. Consider, for example, the nationalization of GM which ended up with Unions owning 35% of the company they were instrumental in driving into bankruptcy, or Obama-care wherein the Union “cadillac plans” received special treatment.

And how about the other end of the social scale: cosmopolitan urbanites, the press, the media, entertainers and academia – natural progressive constituencies. Who among them would not wish to be seen as intellectually superior, the brightest and the best – selfless, altruistic caretakers of the poor and the oppressed?

Thusly the poor, Unions, and elitists become the three main constituencies of progressive big government politicians.

And what of those of us who prefer limited government, how are we called? Well, based on the fact that progressives see themselves as better educated and more intelligent, that must mean they see us as poorly-educated and less intelligent. We continually hear progressive leaders characterizing their opponents as uninformed or “not getting it” or even as rednecks, hillbillies, hicks, and fly-over people. Sarah Palin and her Tea Party supporters are commonly demonized as angry mobs, racists, subversives, and just plain dumb.

More objectively, those of us outside the progressive aristocracy could accurately be described as the “governed”, or the “ruled class”, and in the case of the poor, the “underclass”. On another note, consider that any country must produce food and other goods and services in order to sustain itself, and, since big government is busy ruling and expanding, all the food, goods, and services must be produced by those that are governed. Therefore, we, the governed, could also be called the “productive class”. So, if we, the governed, are the productive class, I guess that would make those that run the government the “unproductive class” or the “non-producing” class.

In the remaining essays in this series, I’ll use “progressives” for the lovers of big government, and “productive class” for those of us who prefer private enterprise and individual freedom.

The saga continues with Government III: Racism in America