Why Limit Government?
Published on June 21, 2004
by
Lawrence Reed Lecture #843
The topic for our discussion this afternoon is "Why Limit
Government?" I am tempted to give you the shortest speech you ever
heard -- just two words: "Why not?!" Yet such a flippant
comment would persuade no one of anything and win no battles for liberty.
Indeed, our movement may be overdue for a refresher on this very
important question.
As men and women who want to "limit" government, we sometimes
come across to others as naysayers. As someone once said, we do a better
job describing Hell than Heaven. Whenever we make the case for limiting
government, we ought to use the opportunity to remind others that we are
opposed to excessive government because we are in favor of some very
positive, important things. We want to limit government -- ultimately --
because we support freedom and the free society.
We want to limit government because we want to maximize opportunity,
enterprise and creativity.
We want to limit government because we want to permit individuals to go
as far as their talents, ambitions, and industry can take them.
We want to limit government because we want people to dream and to have
the room to bring those dreams to fruition -- for themselves and their
families.
We want to limit government because we want to strengthen the
institutions of civil society that tend to shrink as government grows --
institutions such as the family, church, synagogue, mosque, community,
and the many voluntary associations that Alexis de Tocqueville recognized
as the bedrock of American liberty and self-reliance.
We want to limit government because we have learned something from the
thousands of years of experience with it; that it ought properly to be
confined to certain minimal, but critical, functions and otherwise leave
us alone.
Let's not forget that as a movement, we must remain committed to core
principles. We can't be like that character, played by Groucho Marx, who
declared, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have
others!"
The Core
"Core" Principles
With regard to
government, at the "core" of our core principles are these
unassailable truths: Government has nothing to give anybody except what
it first takes from somebody, and a government that is big enough to give
you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've
got.
The older I get, and the more I observe the political process, the more
obvious it is that it's no way to run a business -- or almost anything
else, for that matter. The deficiencies, absurdities, and perverse
incentives inherent in the political process are powerful enough to
frustrate anyone with the best and most altruistic of intentions. It
frequently exalts ignorance and panders to it. A few notable exceptions
aside, it tends to attract the most mediocre talent with motives that are
questionable at best. Government runs on the political process; hence,
all of the problems endemic to politics show up in what government does
and doesn't do.
Indeed, the more that the political process steers government into areas
beyond its principal mission, the less well it does those few things
(like public safety) that we all expect it to do for us.
"Whatever It Has
To Be"
Back in 2001, the
ninth son of Robert and Ethel Kennedy, Max Kennedy, flirted with the idea
of running for political office. A story in the New York Times Magazine
recounted his ill-fated attempt at a stump speech riddled with trite
one-liners like these: "I want to fight for all of you. I'll commit
myself heart and soul to be the kind of congressman who cares about you.
I'll dedicate myself to fighting for working families to have a fair
chance. I make you this one pledge: I will always be there for
you."
Kennedy's handler pressed him repeatedly for a "take-away
message," something of substance that his audience would remember.
"What do you want people to take away from it?" he asked
several different ways. The would-be candidate stammered and couldn't
think of much other than "I'm a nice guy," until finally he
admitted, "I don't know. Whatever it has to be."
Is this man eligible for public office? Certainly, though in this case
the subject fizzled out before his campaign was ever lit and he has
presumably found useful work elsewhere. Hundreds just like Max Kennedy
get elected every year. Yet, would it ever occur to you to put someone
who talks this way in charge of your business? Outside of politics, is
there any other endeavor in which such nonsense is as epidemic?
The Silly Side of
Politics
Welcome to the silly
side of politics. It's characterized by no-speak, doublespeak, and
stupid-speak: the use of one's tongue, lips, and other
speechmaking body parts to sway minds without
ever educating them--and to deceive them, if necessary. The serious side
of politics comes afterwards when the elected actually do something, even
if -- as is often the case -- it bears little resemblance to what they
promised. It's serious business in any case because it's the part where
coercion puts flesh on the rhetorical bones. What makes a politician a
politician and differentiates politics from all other walks of life is
that the politician's words are backed up by his ability to deploy legal
force on their behalf.
This is not a trivial point. After all, in the grand scheme of life there
are ultimately only two ways to get what you want or to get others that
have hired you (or who depend on you) what they want: You can rely on
voluntary action (work, production, trade, persuasion, and charity) or
you can take it by force.
A Dangerous
Servant
No generation ever
grasped the meaning of this better than that of America's Founders. It
was one of our Founders who declared that "Government is not reason.
It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it can be a dangerous
servant or a fearful master." In other words, even when government
is no larger than what our Founders wanted, if it does its job so well as
to be a true "servant," it's still "dangerous."
Indeed, it is on this point that all the difference in the world is made.
Things that rely upon the regular affirmation of voluntary consent don't
look at all like those that rest upon force. Whereas mutual consent
encourages actual results and accountability, the political process puts
a higher premium on the mere promise or claim of results and the shifting
of blame to other parties.
To win or keep your patronage and support, a provider of goods or
services must manufacture something of real value. A business that
doesn't produce or a charity that doesn't meet a need will quickly
disappear. To get your vote, a politician only has to look or sound
better than the next one -- even if both of them would renege on more
pledges than they would keep. In the free marketplace, you almost always
get what you pay for and pay for what you get. As a potential customer,
you can say "No, thanks" and take a walk. In politics, the
connection between what you pay for and what you actually get is
problematic at best.
What Is a Vote
Worth?
This is another way
of asserting that your vote in the marketplace counts for so much more
than your vote in the polling booth. Cast your dollars for the washing
machine of your choice and that is what you get--nothing more and nothing
less. Pull the lever for the politician of your choice and, most of the
time (if you're lucky), you will get some of what you do want and much of
what you don't. The votes of a special interest lobby may ultimately
cancel out yours. As someone much wiser than me once said,
"[P]olitics may not be the oldest profession, but the results are
often the same."
These important distinctions between voluntary, civil society and
coercion-based government explain why political Max Kennedy-types are the
rule rather than the exception. Say little or nothing, or say silly
things, or say one thing and do another -- and your prospects of success
may only be enhanced. When the customers are captives, the seller may
just as easily be the one who whispers seductive nonsense in their ears
as the one who puts something real on their plates.
Like it or not, people judge private, voluntary activities by a higher
standard than they do public political acts. That is all the more reason
to keep politics in a small and isolated corner of our lives. We have
many more productive things to tend to.
Recommendations
With an eye toward
strengthening our efforts to limit government, let me offer these brief
tidbits, each of which is worthy of much greater discussion and many more
specific examples than I have time for here:
- Our side must work harder to relate to
real people. No green eyeshades,
dollars-and-cents-only stuff. We have to show how limiting government
actually improves lives. We must put a human face on the issue by not
only showing how runaway government inflicts real harm on real people,
but also how the free society can produce a more abundant life for all.
- Our side must get smarter with our
rhetoric. We should not allow ourselves
to get bogged down in debating the fine points of every proposed
government expansion. We need to remind people that government, as a
share of our personal income, is consuming five or six times what it did
a century ago. We should be demanding to know from our Big Government
friends why that is not yet enough. We should embarrass them by asking
them to publicly reveal how much more they really want, and at what point
they will finally acknowledge that what a person earns belongs
fundamentally to him, and not to the government.
- Our side must be
strategic, investing more in the issues
in which small victories can mean a lot. Issues that come to mind are
school choice, private retirement accounts, and state government budgets.
When we win those battles, we will start to win across a broad front of
issues.
- Our side must be convinced that it can
win. We must be optimists. Pessimism is not only unwarranted, it is
also a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think the cause is lost, it will
be. No one works hard for a cause they think will lose. We need to
convince the world that if anything in human affairs is inevitable, it is
that humans will be the free beings their Maker intended. It is not
inevitable that they will be ruled by know-it-alls. History is on the
side of liberty, not statism.
In other words, limiting government is a lofty endeavor. It's good,
honest work. It's a powerful message when presented well.
So let's get out there and get it done.
Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
These remarks were delivered in Chicago, Illinois, at the 27th annual
meeting of The Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Why-Limit-Government
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
