Mar 12 2010
The End Of Intrusive, Partisan, BigGov
There is no doubt this is a sea change year in America. We have seen decades of hyper-partisan failures, where one side or the other is allowed a period to lead and they head as far left or right as they can, trying to reshape America in their own fantasy world of perfection. Ignoring the fact that America’s perfection is in its embrace of peaceful diversity and the power of the individual.
Along the way these hyper partisans diss and moan about the great center of America – the diverse heart and soul of America. They rant about those who don’t want a black or white world, who don’t think we have all the answers, who don’t fall for simpleton solutions to complex problems. Centrists have endured a lot of grief for stopping the fringes from going too far, and for allowing the other side a chance at moderate, center-out leadership when things get out of hand. The message has been clearly repeated for many cycles now. Get back to the center, stop trying to mandate and control everything.
But this merry-go-round of the fringes is about to end. The reality is Americans don’t want to be taken care of, told how to live, told how to act, told how to think. They want to explore their individual pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. They want to explore their religion, they want to explore their personal relationships (preferably privately, away from our children) and they want to explore their creativity and see if they can succeed in the free market (whether it is a widget, a piece of art or a some helpful service). We want to explore our individuality, our personal diversity. We want to break from the norm or the conventional wisdom or the ‘way it has been’. We don’t want DC hyper partisans picking winners or losers, best or worst, good or bad.
We do want the individual to have the right to self determination, and we do want them to live with the consequences of their decisions. We can pool temporary safety nets for hard times. But I think we are all fed up with covering for people who had opportunities and squandered them. Those who worked hard and achieved something are not going to be the ones footing the bills for other people’s mistakes and corruption.
What we are finally realizing is our big centralized, federal government is no longer a protection to our individual exploration of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a threat to all we hold dear. Over the years BigGov, the Orwellian beast we were warned about in the book Nineteen Eighty Four, has tried to tamp out our differences and make us march to the tune of the current minority in power. The truth is politicians, the news media, their consultants and talking heads of the Political Industrial Complex are a tiny minority of what makes up America. They are NOT the heart soul and drive of America. And they have failed to solve almost all domestic problems (the one exception in my mind is engaging the private sector to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare).
What we would hopefully see this year as centrists come forward to offer their shot at leadership are plans to dismantle the oppressive BigGov and push power (and creativity to solve problems) back to the states and the people. We do need to pool some money for our national defense, for some national endeavors (like exploring space until it becomes economically sustainable) and to fulfill old commitments like Social Security and Medicare. However, for some of these entitlements the commitment will be short lived and for those who cannot move to the new programs that will replace these outdated behemoths.
I don’t need to have the answers because it will take a generation to undo this mess. All I need to know is the path and the promise to do no harm, force no one to make a choice they do not want to make. I live in a business were we can upgrade to the ‘new’ while supporting those on the ‘old’ until they are ready to move on. We can do this for public policy as well.
If the party plank is to pair back the intrusiveness of government, and the horrendous waste of our money that goes with it, I am all for it. And I think the nation is too.
We need to dismantle much of government. We need to cut taxes and spending so the economy can grow and we can fix our own problems. We need to allow the states to innovate on public policies and services. We can even pool some money to help financially strapped districts or regions to keep up with the innovations, but these pools will be small and only for the very neediest cases.
Whatever we do, we need to do it without the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy. In this information age we can report data and collect results using small, independent groups (more than two) who review the data and report conclusions and make recommendations. We don’t need bureaucracies and mountains of paper. We need independent eyes who cannot be influenced by money.
States can innovate and experiment. The private sector can innovate, experiment and reap the rewards for themselves, their workers and their communities. Pockets of innovation will replace pockets of economic stress. The central reporting function will just communicate to other regions what is working and how it was implemented, or what was not working and why.
The federal government has become the antithesis of America. We don’t need to take back BigGov, we need to take it apart and get back to the Constitution and limited government.
I feel in my bones this is the new path we will embark on, the phoenix that is going to rise from the liberal failures on job stimulus, Obamacare and global warming. They are shining examples of how BigGov has reached the end of its utility.
We need to remove the political know-it-alls who always come up clueless and get back to living our own lives. We need to stop falling for false promises. We need to do this ourselves, and we need to be freed of BigGov to do it.
Update: I do want to comment on the social conservative movement, which I know is being pushed a bit to the side. As long as we remain within the bounds of respecting each other, I think the religious right has an argument that they are singled out and oppressed too much. There should be public prayer, mangers at Christmas and sharing of their beliefs in school (as all should be shared and expressed). Fighting the oppression of the christian right by the intolerant atheists using government to censor them is a cause I champion, even though I am not religious.
In addition, I am pro-life and yet respect the hard choices some have to make when facing medical issues. I am more worried about stem cell industries growing and slaughtering tens of thousands human beings (who happen to be in the embryonic stage of life) than I am about the mother making a choice on one life. We can help women make better choices, pro life choices. We must stop the raising and slaughtering of humans for spare parts for the rich.
It is when the social conservatives attack other people’s life styles, or they want to replace science with divine mythology in school, that they cross the line. To many of us a liberal touting Global Warming is no better than someone touting Intelligent Design. Neither is science.
I would remind our social conservative friends that they have allies when it comes to fighting the oppression they face. We can respect and recall our judeo-christian roots and the meaning of Christmas and share in their view points. That is the boundary of common ground which unites.
AJ,
I agree with nearly all the post, except the claim to centrism and the corollary allocation of a desire to control to the Right.
The Rev. Pat Robertson is a great example of one who claims to be of the Right but wants to control. Despite his claim to be of the Right, it does pass the most basic tests.
Government control is simply not supportably of the Right, as I have posted in your Comments Section in the past.
How do I square these claims? Let’s look at simple charitable enterprises. Until FDR and LBJ squeezed charity out through overwhelming growth of bureaucracies or government-paid private enterprise. As a recent story on National People’s Radio (of all places) explained, implementing Medicare as fee-for-service model squeezed out doctor- and hospital-services for free. Changing the system from the Left dictated control.
What policy of the Right implements a bureaucracy or dictates the behavior of daily life?
In a 1960’s “free love” argument, the response is usually bedroom related. In the pre-Roe v. Wade case of Griswold, the Supreme Court was asked to intervene over Connecticut’s ban on contraception. I cannot say that this was motivated by Catholicism or Methodism or any other sect, because I just don’t know. Assume for a moment that it was in large part Catholicism, due to theologic consistency with the policy, I would point out that the structure and actions of the Catholic Church today and throughout its history are closely wedded to monarchy and oligarchy. Those are not goals of the Right.
One of the great results of the modern Catholic Church, particularly in the John Paul II era is the fresh push against Communism. The Catholic Church lurched toward the Right.
Their debate about the proper role of the Church in society has been a huge contribution to all of society-at-large.
While I do not call the Catholic Church home due to some of its historic tendencies and dogmas, I am happy to see these results and what it has contributed to freedom especially in the Americas, China, and Africa.
In many ways, I find Pat Robertson seeking to create an ad hoc version of the Catholic Church’s less desirable tendencies toward monolithic behavior, which is very consistent with the goals of COMMINTERN and the Socialist International, and not the American Right.
Centrism is not the middle between two controlling tendencies. It is the middle between controlling tendencies and the extreme claims of limited government to the point of abject pacifism and complete laissez faire business. Ironically that extreme Right is almost vacant.
The answer is to go back to the founding principles that are based on natural law.
That is where I believe the conservatives believe in natural law. Which is why I have a problem with abuse of the term, “conservativism”.
People need to read up on the definition of natural law and be able to recognize the symptoms of socialism, progressivism, statism, collectivism, marxism, fascism.
Calling Bush a fascist is an abuse of the word, “fascism”.
One of our great historical myths is that the Roman Empire ended because it was overthrown by the barbarians – it wasn’t. Although there were many conflicts, the barbarian tribes mainly wanted to move inside the Empire and benefit from it’s protection and patronage – which they did, for a while. But that got very expensive.
The Roman Empire ended when all the regions which comprised it came to the conclusion that it was a lot easier and less expensive to live without it than to try and live with it anymore. By this point, because of the expense, the once great armies were all long gone, having been replaced by mercenaries from those same barbarian tribes. The money got cut off, the military fractured into a thousand private pieces, and the Empire became nothing but a memory.
Great article AJ,
I agree with you more of than not, and do not want to spark a big debate, let’s dispense with Obamacare and then resume debate on other issues.
But I would say this…. I suspect that the scientific community involved with study of “origins of life” frequently suffer from the same sort of myopic bias and fraud as the global warming scientists.
Again great article.
oneal,
genetics and evolution are proven, solid science. the origin of life is a different matter open to debate within those frameworks of reality. That is what is wrong with some on the right who don’t understand the difference.
The analogy is gravity in physics controlling the orbits of the Earth and Moon, vs theories and ideas on the origin of the Moon.
Not having a settled and defined origin for the Moon does not invalidate gravity or orbital mechanics.
No debate necessary.
“The oppression of the christian right ….. is a cause I champion”
Seriously? Am I reading this right? You champion oppression in this case?
lol – you love those “Matrix” pics! That’s okay, I like ’em too. (and kudo’s for the Apple Computer “1984” ad reprise, aka the best superbowl ad *evah!*)
I understand your point about the moon, not needing to know the origin to understand the laws governing orbits, good point.
But it reminded me of something I’ve enjoyed reading: The origin of the moon may not be “settled”, but there is a real good theory: http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
theory is: at least two fairly large planets originally formed in the earth orbit. Early in the life of the solar system these two planets collided with both of the cores coalescing while a large part of the silicates on the surface were slung off. This resulted in the Earth, with a huge metal core and a very thin crust, and the moon, which is essentially nothing but light crust all the way through.
The nice thing about this theory is that it explains why the earth has a huge magnetic core while the moon has none at all. For those who like to take note of the anthropic principle, this quirk has the side effect of giving the earth an electromagnetic radiation shield several times more powerful than any planet its size should have; Earth’s magnetic field ends up being almost as strong as Jupiter’s.
It also ended up with the Earth being a geologically fascinating place with all kinds of metals occurring very close to the surface, while the moon is simply a big dead silica rock with no metals.
The news is full of stories on internet and radio about house panels, reconciliation, CBC scoring……..
There seems to be a lot of confusion and ignorance about what is going on and what needs to happen to block this monster.
If the house passes the senate bill its over! Obama can sign the bill and its done.
All news about reconciliation, house budget panels etc is a misdirection.
TGSG,
Whatever I wrote, you are not reading it right! Will fix.
Update: OK TGSG – does it make sense now?
Nice post, AJ. I think most of us with reasonable minds and small differences are ending up in the same place with you. We are in a frightening mess right now. I, too, see a phoenix arising from the ashes. We will end up a much better country when we come out of it. Until then….long live the revolution.
Amen.
Finally, an accurate report at TPM (talkingpointsmemo.com by Christina Bellantoni. “Democrats leap of faith….”)
The house dems must pass the senate bill as written, including cornhusker kickback, louisiana purchase, abortion funding etc.
They must pass it and Obama must sign it into law before any reconciliation could be undertaken.
AJ will they do it?
Oneal,
I am not the right one to ask, but at the moment it looks DOA.
AJ,
Your thinking is a little muddled. When the Republicans were in charge, how did they try to head as far right as they could? I must have missed that. And then there’s this:
“We need to dismantle much of government. We need to cut taxes and spending so the economy can grow and we can fix our own problems.â€
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir, here. But make no mistake, with respect to where the U.S. electorate is in 2010, this is a RADICAL position. The only way to do what you’re asking is to essentially eliminate Medicare and Social Security. Medicare alone will virtually bankrupt our country within a few decades. Do you really think that, today, the American people want to see Medicare destroyed? I’d like to see any presidential candidate say that in 2012! He’d be labeled a reactionary, anti-modern Neanderthal who wants to see old people have no healthcare or food.
AJ,
You wrote “genetics and evolution are proven, solid science. the origin of life is a different matter open to debate within those frameworks of reality.”.
Genetics, yes. Evolution, not so much. Evolution makes no falsifiable hypotheses. It is a collection of ex post facto “just so” stories to explain speciation. Micro evolution? Science. Macro evolution? No.
The origin of life is not a different matter. Macro evolution posits that the radically different configuration of DNA that distinguishes species is due to random mutations. They have no rational (i.e., experimental) explanation how this occurs. These same mechanisms supposedly account for the origin of DNA. The evolutionist says “that is a different matter”. That’s a huge cop out.
Roy
What I see right now is the Big bad government in the ascendancy against the people.
I hope to be able to see it recede..
[…] The Strata-Sphere – The End Of Intrusive, Partisan, BigGov […]
AJ,
Yeah, that’s what I thought it meant. I had only had one cup of coffee and wasn’t sure I was reading your thought correctly.
Thanks
“I would remind our social conservative friends that they have allies when it comes to fighting the oppression they face. We can respect and recall our judeo-christian roots and the meaning of Christmas and share in their view points. That is the boundary of common ground which unites.”
Good point AJ. As an evangelical Christian social conservative I whole heartedly agree. One of the things that amazes me about the history of our nation is that at its inception men of various beliefs, creeds and confession all came together, put there differences aside and constructed what is perhaps the most amazing document ever created by man – our constitution. That same spirit needs to be part of the push against liberal-big-government intrusion.