The Role of Government

A Montpelier View ^ | 11/08/13 | Mustang

[LD Jackson]

We all know what the role of government is supposed to be: it is outlined for us in great detail within the United States Constitution.  But this is a far cry from the way government actually behaves.  The other day, Geeez offered us the opportunity to discuss the so-called Affordable Care Act, and in response to something I wrote, commenter Dave Miller wondered how John Berger and I would justify government involving itself in the private business of an insurance company.  He said, “Why should we choose to regulate one part of an American business, and not some others?  Mind you, I could probably agree with your approach, I just can’t reconcile it with how I understand Conservatives to think about government and business.”

First of all, I appreciated Mr. Miller’s question about conservative attitudes, rather than about Republicans.  Not all Republicans are conservative; many are politicians without principles, and this is a problem in today’s political environment.  So today I want to talk about this for a bit.

Where I think we are today is that far too many Republicans identify more with Obama’s notion of new-socialism, than they do the notions of conservatives that the left has labeled as “Tea Party Radicals.”  It is a term that, along with “right wing extremist” that I find laughable.  Conservatives are only radical in this one sense: it is how the left has chosen to label them.  The Tea Party folks I know actually consist of Americans from both the Democratic and Republican parties, who think that modern politicians have lost their way.  I have never heard a racist comment from any of them, and no one has threatened the life of the President in my presence.  In today’s environment, I think it is entirely possible that Nancy Pelosi would label John F. Kennedy as a Tea Party Radical.  What this does is illustrate the state of our society today.  Rather than taking the time to explain our position, and listen to the views of others, we divide ourselves ideologically without a concomitant willingness to find a way to work out our differences.  Should we continue along this path, I foresee yet another civil conflict.

Poorly contrived labels do little more than muddy up the waters.  The result of this is confusion, rather than clarity.  We all know what a communist is: someone who embraces Marxist political philosophy.  On the other hand, a tea-bagger is —what? — someone who enjoys Lipton tea?  What I wonder about is this: how much of this leftist demonization impacts the unprincipled Republican?  Conservatives refer to these people as RINOs; the left regard them as useful.

I don’t understand the RINO, an individual who professes conservative principles at election time, while behaving as a progressive in between elections.  Patently, it is the enabling of a foreign ideology to take root within these United States.  Why are they not fighting for their principles?  I think it is because they are deceitful.  A conservative is one who celebrates limited government and unlimited freedom.  Diametrically opposed to this notion are those who value more government and less individual liberty.

And of course, we know who these people are: they claim that it is impossible to campaign honestly and successfully on conservative principles.  I don’t think this is true, but if it is true, it is because conservative candidates haven’t taken the time to convince their constituents of the rightness of the philosophy.  If a Republican is confused about any of this, he or she is not a conservative.

There is nothing in the conservative lexicon suggesting that there is no role for government.  Of course there is a role.  It is, however, a role limited by the United States Constitution —which the new Democratic Party disregards at every opportunity because they do not see this argument as valid.  “It is a piece of paper, for gods sakes.”  Thus, it is easy to dismiss the Constitution because it has failed to keep up with what the Democrats wish to transform our nation into: a nation in which the government may deny the people their inalienable rights.  Government may listen in to our conversations; it may use drones to keep tabs on what we are doing; it may erect closed circuit TV cameras on every street corner, it can stop and frisk people on the sidewalk without provocation, and it can limit the expression of our opinion —all for the greater good.

In fact, the things Progressives wish to implement in America would make a far longer list than those things specifically enumerated within the Constitution that safeguard our liberty.  They argue that the people deserve more, but it always ends up as “more government” paid for by everyone else, and few things even sanctioned by the Constitution.  It makes you wonder —but not about the progressive movement.  We know what they are.  It makes me wonder about who these Republicans are.

I’ll say it again: conservatives are not anti-government.  We simply believe in government in the same way our Constitution defines it: limited.  Neither does the word limited suggest small or ineffective government.  It means that the federal government must restrain itself; it must contend with those things specifically authorized by the Constitution, which to reiterate my earlier position —is the law of the land.  Under this system of federalism, if there is to exist a welfare state, then it must exist within each of our several states, not within the federal government.  There is no national interest (or authority) in unifying all school curricula.  There is no justification to deny a sovereign state its authority to take care of its own citizens without federal bullying.

Let us recall:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.  Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all.  They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it.  The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures.  Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures.  Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.  On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.  —James Madison, The Federalist 45

James Madison and other of our founding fathers not only offered us sound federalism; they offered us a damn good domestic policy and sensible guidelines about how we should govern ourselves.  We have not taken this advice seriously, and as a consequence, we have reduced ourselves to a mass of squiggly worms jockeying for some space in the pail of dark soil —the combined intelligence of which is reduced to a negative integer.

I must conclude that it is not the progressive movement that best equates to classical liberalism: it is the conservative movement.  All one must do is think about this carefully, do some reading beyond Marvel Comics, and begin asking themselves what it is that they believe, and why they believe it.  If we persist in this reckless path, if we remain so intent upon upsetting the cart upon which our Constitution now sits, then perhaps we no longer deserve the blessings of liberty.

[Flintlock]

Blah, blah, blah, blah........................

Just remember, boys and girls-—the LAST TIME we actually ran a REAL conservative (small ‘c’) we only won FORTY-NINE of the FIFTY-SEVEN states.

Chew on that one.

[MosesKnows]

We all know what the role of government is supposed to be

I don't agree that we all know. In fact, I assert that very few know the proper role of the federal government.

The Constitution is about how the government will function within, and only within, the legislative powers granted by the Constitution.