Here's the logical argument I though you were making:
1. Government as it exists today is solving the wrong problems and mostly
making things worse
2. If that government collapsed, those distorting influences would
disappear
3. In that reduced state, people would be forced to grapple with fundamental
natural rights
4. This would (via "spontaneous order") naturally lead to creating a
superior form of government
Is that not the argument you were making? If not, can you spell it out more
clearly for me?
Whether or not -you- believed that, can you see how *I* perceived (c) and
(d) as implying something similar to Rouseau's noble savage theory?
Thanks,
-- Ernie P.
This is pretty close. Although I am not calling for the collapse of the
government. I want a serious deconstruction/reform. I think of things on a
communitarian continuum from anarchy to authoritarianism. This is what I
wrote in Discovering Possibility.
Big Changes in the Economic System
Consistent with my belief that we are at a tipping point in American history
in which our liberty is disappearing because of an expansion of government
and related corporate interests, my restoration plan is largely a call for a
widespread deconstruction of institutions that drink at that well. It is
time to subtract rather than add. Others are focusing on reconstruction
through addition. It is not that I am opposed to any new growth or reforms
and indeed some of the reconstruction ideas have merit, especially in
transportation and infrastructure. However, in a society that is
economically and morally bankrupt our priority should be getting back to
basics by deconstructing what is not working and rebuilding our economic and
moral infrastructure, based on an enduring set of values.
Columnist David Brooks talks about the need for clear values in a recent New
York Times editorial entitled, "Ben Franklin's Nation".[i] Mr. Brooks
believes that as the world changes, the United States will need to be able
to define itself by its values rather than by its rank, which is a position
that mirrors my own thinking. In the post-American world, the American
identity will still be important, or even more important as the world
becomes increasingly interconnected. We will need to remember who we are and
be comfortable sharing our values without the fundamentalist nationalist
attitude that has dominated international discourse in the past. In my way
of thinking, the Post-American world will be one in which Americans are
free, well differentiated, congruent, and neighborly.
In an inspiring new book, Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein writes that
it is indeed possible to unwind the mega-welfare state to return the state
to its primary functions. Prince Adam believes those essential functions
are: providing for the national defense, educating its people through a
voucher system, and ensuring the rule of law. In The State in the Third
Millennium, Prince Adam advocates a systematic deconstruction process, which
would involve devolving the power of federal governments and related
programs so local communities would be better able to serve their citizens.
In contrast to how much of Europe now operates, Prince Adam envisions the
state as a service company whose limited role is to serve and protect its
citizens as efficiently as possible. I find this concept appealing and
believe it represents what most Americans want from their government.
Unfortunately, the century long progressive ascendancy in the United States
Government and its related proxy institutions has created a dependency state
that will be difficult to deconstruct. Today, over twenty percent of
Americans is in some way dependent on direct government subsidy for housing,
food, or welfare.[ii] That percentage will rise precipitously if the
recently passed Health Reform Law is enacted. Many more Americans are
receiving government subsidy in one form or another if we include corporate
welfare, nonprofit organization grants, government worker salaries and
military personnel costs. That percentage is difficult to calculate but some
observers believe it may be greater than fifty percent of all Americans and
rising.[iii] This figure is a new high that reverses a self-reliance trend
that started under Reagan in 1980.
Consequently, it will take some time to unwind the socialist buildup. Nobody
knows what the optimal intensity or duration for an undertaking like this
should be because it has never been attempted on such a large scale in the
history of the world. There have been many periods of austerity that
balanced excesses of previous economic bubbles but there has never been a
wholesale societal deconstruction in a Liberal democracy such as what will
be needed to restore America during this crisis. In my opinion, Americans
are fearful but the majority of us are now ready for such a dramatic
undertaking.
Remember, the Marxists believe the current economic condition is an
expected and necessary evolution. They have no inclination to change
anything. They await the revolution. Change too soon could create a
revolutionary fervor and backlash among those that have come to believe that
Uncle Sam owes them something - or better stated that it is appropriate for
Uncle Sam to take earnings from some people and give it to them. Many
stakeholders are brainwashed by those that keep their power by maintaining
the status quo. Like any dependency, going cold turkey could be dangerous.
So, it will be important for our leaders to make a firm commitment to a
fundamental change of direction, as I will explain below, but to make the
changes gradually so as to reform the system in a manner that our fragile
economy and the dependents in it can handle. That is not to say there will
not be any pain. We have made our own bed and now it is time for us to sleep
in it. Each of us is going to have to sacrifice something.
The new American center is making its core beliefs well known and they are
angry. They distrust big government and they distrust big corporations. They
see both entities as corrupt, inefficient, and essentially broken. My belief
is we have an unholy alliance between government and large corporations that
needs to be put asunder. When push comes to shove and we are forced to make
a decision I believe we should always err on the side of freedom from
government as our Founders warned. Consequently, while I see both government
and corporations as co-conspirators in the modern day oligarchy I believe it
is government power, more than corporate excess that we should fear the
most.
Formerly the American political system had organized itself around a false
polarity. One party was the party of business and the other was the party of
government. The new center is exploding that notion and is making it clear
they do not trust either party because each ensures its own political power
by aligning with the corrupting influences from both of those powerful
special interests. The new center, represented by Conservative Populism
generally, wants to reign in the excesses of corrupt corporations AND
government. I support that balanced perspective and believe it is the key to
restoring American liberty, opportunity, prosperity, and happiness.
The best way to immediately affect our broken community would be to starve
the government sponsored and union money interests in the human services
sector to reduce waste, bureaucracy and professionalization. Public safety
net advocates and Libertarians should be able to agree that if public
services are deemed to be necessary, the best way to help people is to get
the resources and services to them directly and with as little middle man
interference as possible. Unfortunately, that is not the case today because
we have powerful civil service unions and a self-perpetuating services
sector jobs economy getting in the way and blocking efforts to streamline
the delivery system. It is often said in jest by serious reformers that we
would be better off standing on the street corner and handing out one
hundred dollar bills to people rather than subjecting them to the layers of
our awkward and inefficient human services system.
Some government reform reports have concluded that if we closed several
ineffective federal government departments and streamlined others, returning
those functions to states and local communities like our Founders intended,
we could save trillions of dollars per year in waste and inefficiency.[iv]
Most Americans support this action and want the federal government to have
less power and less money.[v] Returning control of functions and mandates
currently managed by the federal government to local communities encourages
ownership, empowerment, neighborliness and personal responsibility. Common
sense tells us that most communities would do better without the
interference and unfunded mandates. In my opinion, even impoverished
communities would improve if they could get control over their own lives and
get the federal government out of their business.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] David Brooks, "Ben Franklin's Nation," New York Times, December 14,
2010; available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212.
[ii] William Beach, "The 2009 Index of Dependence on Government," Report
from The Heritage Foundation, March 4, 2010; available at:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/the-2009-index-of-dependence-on-government.
[iii] Mark Trumbull, "As U.S. Tax Rates Drop, Government's Reach Grows," The
Christian Science Monitor (April, 2007).
[iv] Fred Thompson, "Government at the Brink, Volume 1: Urgent Federal
Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration," Committee on
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate (Washington, D.C.: June 2001) available
at: http://hsgac.senate.gov/vol1.pdf.
[v] "62% Say Politicians Want Government to Have More Power and Money,"
Rasmussen Reports, June 21, 2010; available at:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/62_say_politicians_want_government_to_have_more_power_and_money.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
