Sometimes I engage in side debates with Liberal Democrats (via email) and these debates often inspire posts.
What inspired this post? My debating partner complained about the Republican led Senate’s refusal to consider any more of President Barack Hussein Obama’s judicial nominees. He was outraged by the Republican’s unwillingness to compromise. Since the subject of our previous debate had been on the merits of limited government versus those of Socialism, I sent him this observation.
Can we have it both ways? If we had a limited government, there would be room for compromise. People would worry more about what they should do instead of making other people do what they want them to do.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a limited government. When government becomes ever more important, partisanship inevitably increases. At a certain point, people start fighting because the government is not giving them what they want.
That’s why Socialism is not a good solution. We should not be demanding of government things we can do just as well or better through private endeavors.
What I got back should not have surprised me, but it did. In fact, it shocked me.
March 17, 2016
UNITY STATE, South Sudan — After hearing Republican presidential candidates denounce big government and burdensome regulation, I’d like to invite them to spend the night here in the midst of the civil war in South Sudan.
You hear gunfire, competing with yowls of hyenas, and you don’t curse taxes. Rather, you yearn for a government that might install telephones, hire a 911 operator and dispatch the police.
From afar, one sees the United States differently. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seem to think that America’s Achilles heels are immigration and an activist government. But from the perspective of a war zone, these look more like national strengths.
Indeed, take what Trump is clamoring for: weaker government, less regulation, a more homogeneous society. In some sense, you find the ultimate extension of all that right here. (continued here)
Apparently, suggesting any reduction of the Liberal Democrat’s Utopian dreams is equivalent to turning the United States into an abysmal Third World nation. No Republican has even come close to proposing such anarchy, but that doesn’t stop The New York Times from demonizing the opposition. What is absurd about this is that views of The New York Times are so extreme they can lump Donald Trump and Ted Cruz together without missing a beat.
We are piling up debt. Our public schools are becoming indoctrination centers. The pressures of taxation and regulation have stagnated economic growth and forced companies to move overseas. We risk losing religious freedom. Foreign enemies abound and our military is growing relatively weaker. We cannot even enforce our borders. Our infrastructure needs repair. The cost of medical care continues to surge. Problem after problem after problem.
What do Liberal Democrats propose to fix problem after problem after problem? More and more of the same. More government.
Our Constitution says what the Federal Government is suppose to do, and the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the Federal Government isn’t suppose to do anything that is not in the Constitution. No sane, honest soul can read the Constitution and use it to justify how Federal Government now spends most of the money it spends. Yet such observations apparently have nothing to do with how Liberal Democrats view the world. They just make up their own facts.
Two political scientists, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, argue that America’s achievements rest on a foundation of government services but that we Americans suffer from “American Amnesia” (that’s also the title of their book coming out this month) and don’t appreciate this.
“We are told that the United States got rich in spite of government, when the truth is closer to the opposite,” they write. Every country that journeyed from mass illiteracy and poverty to modernity and wealth did so, they note, because of government instruments that are now often scorned. (excerpt from ‘Big Government’ Looks Great When There Is None)
Given the context, that assertion is absurd. Did the United States become prosperous because of the type of government we once had? Yes, but the author of that New York Times op-ed would like us to believe that Americans have always had bunches of busybodies trying to run their lives. Not true. Read the Declaration of Independence. That document explains why the American colonists fought the American Revolution. The American colonists fought to preserve their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They did not want King George III, a would-be tyrant in distant land, trying to make tax slaves out of them.
Are you a tax slave? Have you ever added up all the money you pay in taxes? Have you ever looked at how much our government spends? Who benefits? How much of your money are our political leaders spending to buy things our country actually needs them to buy? When do taxes, regulations, laws — when does the iron hand of government — become so extreme we have an obligation to replace the rascals and send them home?
No Republican candidate has proposed to cut Federal spending to the bone his first day in office and starve people. However, that is obviously what The New York Times would like us to believe
What do Conservatives want? Conservatives today share goals similar to the Americans of 1776. We accept the fact that power corrupts, and we don’t want scheming, power-hungry politicians trying sell us out to whatever political donors give them the most money. Instead, we would like to make use of that blueprint for government we call the Constitution. We would like to reduce our government to a point where we have some control over it. That too extreme? Well, apparently some would like to frighten us and make us believe it is.
Is the author of that New York Times op-ed, Big Government’ Looks Great When There Is None, just demonizing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Is enforcing the Constitution a wild idea? Not sure? Well, I can remember a time when my education (“free” from the public school system) was lacking too. Then I read documents like the following.
- Declaration of Independence
- Articles of Confederation
- The United States Constitution
- The Federalist Papers or here at Project Gutenberg
There are more such documents here => Citizen Library.
If we want to understand our history, what is the best way? Often it is best to read what people who lived at the time we want to understand wrote. Unfortunately, that is not what many of us did in school. But, we can change that.