Posted by
Derek H on Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:41:51 PM
I read
this article today and had intended to leave a comment, but I found that I had more to say than could be adequately addressed. So I decided to write a full-fledged post responding to these arguments. Let's start off with what the author and I can absolutely agree upon.
Government is a necessary evil. Until all human beings are saints, government will always be necessary. It provides the ground rules for the game of life, and deters those who would pervert the game to their own ends by providing guidelines and sanctions for ignoring those guidelines.
I can also agree with your point that character and results do not go hand in hand. A high character individual may promulgate inefficient, wasteful, or just plain stupid policies just as easily as someone with very little character (many Republicans with their abstinence-only sex education policies fall into this category). Conversely, responsible policy can come from a very flawed person (take Ted Kennedy who, though I disagree with him on many things, has generated good policy at times). You are absolutely correct, character does not always yield results.
Now, on your thesis that government and the state are two different things, I'd say you're indulging in wordplay and hairsplitting. You are also deliberately misuderstanding the criticism levied in your direction. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "statism" as "a political system in which the state has substantial central control over social and economic affairs." Therefore, calling you a statist is saying you want more government control over social and economic affairs. Your digression on character and results is a complete non sequitur, as is your questionable assertion that morality is derived from civics. It is an attempt to deflect and redefine the label, not defend against it.
On to the size of government. You state that "The recurring theme in these parts is that government is evil, and the difference between the left and right in America is the difference between big government and small government." Let's take this in two parts. First, we've already agreed that government is a necessary evil, but in that very definition we find that government is an evil. Never mind that it is necessary. The question then boils down to how much government intervention is necessary to protect everyone's liberty. Thomas Paine said, "That government is best which governs least." Why? Because every law that is promulgated by the government is, by its very definition, a check on someone's liberty. Taxes also fall into this category, because every additional layer of taxation on an activity punishes those who would participate in that activity. Are some laws and taxes necessary? Of course, but they should be narrowly crafted to limit the social and economic harm they do while maximizing the good. Oh, and much as you say we are confusing government and state, I say you are confusing conservatives and politicians when you state that not much shows that Republicans are really the party of smaller government. Conservatives constantly rail against overreaching government, no matter what party the perpetrators represent.
You then go on to say, in a long-winded manner, "We won, you lost, get over it." You also complain at the label of "facists." Well, what would you call it when a government can overstep centuries of settled business law and dictate that unsecured creditors who are politically favored should take precedence over secured ones who aren't (Chrysler)? What would you call it when unelected Czars can control executive pay in private companies? What would you call it when the government tries to mandate universal health care despite an unknown total cost and dubious assertions of continued private options? What would you call it when free speech is stifled in the name of "political correctness" and moral relativism (note, only speech with which you disagree. See the difference in treatment between Imus and Letterman, or Prejean and Girofalo.)? Your "clinching argument" paragraph is true to some degree (smaller government may not be any more efficient but it sure is less abusive, simply because it doesn't have the power to BE abusive), but has absolutely nothing to do with the fascist label you attempt to reject.
The left wants to control everyone's lives, in the belief that they know what's best for everyone. They want cradle-to-grave protection from every possible harsh reality of life. They believe they have the right to say anything they want, but not the duty to allow things to be said that might offend or anger them personally. They continually subdivide us into "protected" groups so that more and more people will adopt the victim mentality and rely on the government for help. They are intent on creating, not a representative state, but a ruling class that will use its "benevolent wisdom" to direct the lives of everyone else.
The title of your article is correct. You are a statist. You are a fascist. And you are a threat to the principles and beliefs that made this country uniquely great. The thing is, I know you're sincere in saying you're a patriot and want what's best for the country. But by advocating stifling the individual in favor of the collective, you merit both the labels above.