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.
Isn’t there an analogy between the matrix and the mainstream media, insofar as it exists largely to prevent many or even most people from seeing that there is another reality beyond what it confidently projects is the “official” one? I think any discussion like this that ignores the foundational role that the media plays in lending credence to statism is incomplete. I wonder if the founding fathers ever imagined a media the majority of which was anti-indovidualist and pro-collectivist?
ps. “If the party plank is to pair back the intrusiveness of government…” should read “pare back”.
Medicare could be saved (and money saved) if the government would allow the senior who could afford it to have private insurance. If the government would negotiate with insurance companies like they did with Plan D, it would be possible. I pay about $300 for all my health insurance including Parb B & D monthly + $135.00 deductible yearly. I could put another $100 to that to have private insurance and would do so gladly.
What we also need to do is dismantle these agencies that do nothing but give away our money in welfare-like giveaways. Some are even duplicates. The idea of hiring all these federal employees is a drain on our resources. My feeling is that Obama has already set up these committees for the healthcre bill; otherwise where did he put all thse people unless they are his private army.
I have been out today-
Is it true that Nancy has 211 votes for the HC bill? Saw that on another site.
I am sickened. This CANNOT pass.
And to the so-called conservative democrats, hear this: The democrat party is going to GET RID OF YOU in November. They don’t want you whether you vote for the bill or not. You CANNOT TRUST THEM. Maxine Waters has already said as much last year to Rahm.
Save your souls from these vampires. It is all you will have left after dancing with them since ’06.
Shame on the democrat party for allowing these vampires to take over their party….You can redeem yourselves by taking them down on the healthcare vote. Think about it….
One thing you can be sure of is that as of today she doesn’t have the votes. The moment she has the votes, a vote will be scheduled. Not enuf votes, no vote.
I also wonder if the Supreme Court can bring up the legality of the process of passing a law, or does it have to be brought to them?
Here’s an interesting quotation:
that’s from:http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjurisdiction.htm
So, depending on how you read that, it appears to me that if a low is unconstitutional, they can declare it so without waiting.
the word ‘low’ in that last sentence above should be ‘law’
at another place I found this.
The main functions of the Supreme Court are to:
1. Settle disputes between states.
2. Hear appeals from state and federal courts.
3. Determine the constitutionality of federal laws.
so it appears that is one of their 3 primary functions. So I’d guess they can have “original jurisdiction” over Obamacare.
As an evangelical Lutheran I wish to remind all that the separation of church and state was part of the exquisite balance our founders layed forth.
God does not need to be in schools. Which God would we choose?
Let’s put pietas, fides, gravitas, dignitas, constantia – these virtues were interwoven into the Roman education system – in the schools.
Evolution does not “need” to be in the schools either. It has no impact on the study of any other discipline.
Our country was formed on the basis of Nature’s God, not ‘church God. There is a huge difference. Maybe that’s why there is Jeffersonian separation of church and state, not God and State.
Choose whatever organized religion you like.
It would be nice if progressives had never gotten the 17th Amendment passed, the unfunded mandates to the States have never stopped since. And we wouldn’t have these up-Chuck Schumer’s rulers for life in our now mostly permanent politburo either.
Good luck on that reducing the size of government thing. The reason Government keeps on growing is because Civil Service laws prevent any President from firing anyone on the government payroll.As a result, each new president has to come up with ever more programs with the resulting bureaucratic staff to administer them so he can make jobs for his supporters and followers. Once a program is established it is forever because it’s employees are guarantee that job is their’s forever. . Right now we have more government employees than we have people working in manufacturing. In addition, we now have more executive level positions than there are people with the intellignce to fill them. It’s just a matter of time before we have to pay a bribe to get one of them to answer the phone. Everyone needs to remember, corruption cannot exist unless someone has control over the allocation of goods and services. As the quality and intelligence of new employees drop, the greater the chance of corruption.
momdear1: that is a depressing and accurate way to look at it. Still, people are people and they like to be inspired, even dullards. Were there leaders and then leaders of leaders and then a top leader who was fresh, bold, creative, true, and had a vision that he or she could and would share, the spirits of all would be lifted. Alas, our world lacks fresh, bold, clear, loving leaders. Our world lacks honesty and intelligence. We need a person of the stature of Abraham Lincoln at this time.
AJ: COULD YOU PUT A BUTTON at the BOTTOM of the comments section that goes “HOME” – it would save us much scrolling. (There could also be a button for “NEXT POST”. )
also, AJ, it would be nice if at the top of each story were a link to comments with the current # of comments – that way, your good posters could track if someone commented on their comment without so much scrolling.
~ Society for the Prevention of Over-Scrolling
re: religion/religious beliefs.
I’ve never understood the argument that the “non-belief” in something was the same as “belief” in same. And further, that non-belief therefore should be protected as a belief, ie., protecting one from the expression of the other.
Sort of like a vegetarian pig?
Ok, folks, don’t look now but exactly the scenario I have been warning about for the past three years is coming to pass.
CP, I saw that earlier and that’s no surprise.
“Our country was formed on the basis of Nature’s God, not ‘church God. There is a huge difference. Maybe that’s why there is Jeffersonian separation of church and state, not God and State.”
No, that’s not why there is a Jeffersonian separation of church and state nor God and State.
Actually our country was formed on the basis of natural law, which St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about a lot. It is my understanding that the origin of natural law came from Christianity.
The notion of God in our founding documents is to get across that the rights of human beings are derived from something larger than any person themselves and so can not be taken by another person lest that person place themselves as superior to God.
For example, in today’s culture we twist around “rights” and obligations. We all have a “right” to health care if we can find the means of obtaining it. The government can not say you can not have it. That is part of the “pursuit of happiness”. You may fail to obtain it but that does not mean a right has been taken from you. What we are today calling a “right” to health care means an obligation to pay for the care of others. An obligation mandated by the federal government paid for by taxes extracted at the point of a gun. And if you do not believe that, then refuse to pay your taxes and I promise you that the man with the gun will eventually show up.
We already have a right to health care. We simply do not have the obligation to pay for the care of others (and by that same token, others have no obligation to pay for ours). You have the right to strive for these things but you have no right to be granted them as a matter of course. One of my favorite lines in a political speech was “the constitution says the government should PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE it.”.
Anyhow, our rights derive from God, not from politicians.
Also, the only people the government (we the people) have the obligation to provide health care for are wards of the federal government such as prisoners and the military and the foreign service.
The government (your community) is not responsible for your health care.
Government is not a charity nor is it responsible for “taking care” of you.
There is a fundamental difference between what you have a right to under our constitution, and what you may want or desire. (great article on this, but can’t recall the link). Example given was:
You have a “right” to free speech and association…but that does not then guarantee you a “right” to a stage, gathering house, or audience. Those might be things you “want”, but not having them does not mean your rights have been negated.
You don’t “have” to own a gun to have the right to (at least that still exists in most of the union). Nor is someone else obligated to provide you with one, or ammo, or shooting glasses should you desire one.
Fundamentally, the individual rights we have from the constitution were never meant, nor designed, to take from someone else. The min you start sticking your hand in someone else’s pocket….you aren’t talking about a “right”. You are talking about something you “want”, that you need money for.
We have fundamentally lost our way as a nation. The things your family did for you..to sit where you are today, they did out of love for you. But, it’s not your neighbors responsibility to continue to reward you with those things, or a way of life, because you have become accustomed to them. Hell, we even tell banks and corporations today that make bad decisions ….”there are no losers”. Just like we teach kids today. Nobody fails. Everybody gets a fair share, everybody gets a trophy, and nobody can lose. We are “all” winners. Bah.
The key to the above in knowing the difference between a right and a want/desire….is when your “right” fundamentally involves the compelled direct use of others in order to achieve it (ie.,which in turn violates “their” rights). Taking money from people to fund things is taxation.
A right to assemble is not the right to an audience. It’s the individual right to gather in groups. When you decide to exercise that right…the gov does not force people to attend so you have a group to be with.
Forcing people to fund, or buy something so that others can get it free, has nothing to do with “rights”.
Walter Williams wrote a great article about this.
And there’s an article over at American Thinker, published yesterday.
It’s the difference between rights and wishes.
The lefties LOVE to twist the word, “Creator” as if “Creator” is a God of any religion, including Allah. And that we’ll never know what the Founders meant when they used the word, “Creator”.
Too bad that too many people actually believe them.
When the Founders used the word, “Creator”, they meant Christian God.
“The notion of God in our founding documents is to get across that the rights of human beings are derived from something larger than any person themselves and so can not be taken by another person lest that person place themselves as superior to God.”
Natural Law – is based on the fact that man is an imperfect being and that because a man is imperfect, there is no way that a man can rule over another man. The only way to do it is to be ruled by God, our Creator.
At least, that’s my understanding.
Which is why the progressives worked so hard and successfully to transform our country into a secular nation by separating God from our lives, nation, and government.