It’s a funny thing to hear certain citizens vehemently criticizing the government, whether it’s federal, state or local. They treat the government as some sort of separate entity from themselves. Our federal and state governments are constitutionally set up as republican democracies, whereas, we control it directly through our elected representatives and executives. By treating government as a separate entity, they claim that they are not a part of it and the only relationship that they have is that of an unwilling victim under the weight of an oppressive government, whether it’s from taxes, regulations or restrictive laws. Does that mean we are being victimized by ourselves? Isn’t this actually removing oneself from responsibility and accountability by claiming the role of victim?
From our earliest beginnings on this continent, people came here to pursue opportunity and freedom from repressive established societies, which restricted the pursuit of their human potential. We have been inculcated from birth to resist restrictions, pursuing free expression and direction, but at the same time to constantly maintain personal and social order, thus achieving the security and protection of the group. This has led to two distinct values; one being that of the sovereign individual and the other the sovereignty of the group or community. This creates conditions that can create friction and conflict. Effective mediation between the two is usually accomplished through a process of assimilation, accommodation and learning to compromise between the two values. However, society has implemented an overriding structure to assure mediation through balancing the needs of conflicting interests. We call this instrument of organization and mediation; government.
We, as a species, are communal by nature. Over the course of history, our main adaptive survival mechanism has been social structure. An ordered, protective and adaptive social structure has been found to be the most effective and efficient means to guarantee survival of the fittest and the passing on of our genetic legacy. Over time the instruments of living together have developed and taken the form of morality, ethics, traditions, folkways, technology, etc. These varied instruments are the adaptations placed on us by our responding to physical environment and our pursuit of both individual and species survival. Attempting to survive on our own will only render limited success, until we are finally overcome by old age, physical disaster or disease. At that point we cease to exist, including our genetic line.
In my view, the United States was founded on satisfying the individual and social needs of three primary groups:
- The emerging rich mercantile and banking class (engaged in smuggling against the East India Company and the British Crown) of the Mid-Atlantic and New England colonies.
- The aristocratic planters of the Southern colonies.
- The yeomen farmers, craftsmen, and retailers.
There was a fourth group that was pretty much out of the control of organized government; the frontiersmen, settlers beyond the Alleghenies and the Northwest Territory.
Our form of government came straight out of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. The country was formed by the educated and enlightened members of the rich mercantile and planter classes. There vision of government included meeting the needs of society while assuring the needs of the individual. Therefore, they created a limited government with its own internal checks and balances. But, in so doing they also cast the seeds for derision, conflict and a cyclic pattern of power between the two primary divisions, personal sovereignty and communal sovereignty.
EXCLUSION verses INCLUSION
In the beginning our government was formed and controlled by an extremely small group of rich, native born, white landowners. These were the only ones who could seek national political office and vote. I call this the Governmental Exclusion Phase, where more individuals and groups were excluded than were included. This lasted until the War Between the States abolished the vile institution of slavery. From the Civil War onward we abandoned our government of exclusion to move to a government of inclusion. Over the last one hundred and fifty years we have moved to more and more inclusion of selective groups into full citizenship with the right to vote and to hold political office. This has lowered the barriers to include non-whites, women, etc. This is definitely a sovereign community action. As more groups are included the role of government has needed to be broadened.
When the nation was formed, the population was estimated at around 4.0 million. During the first presidential election, the electorate only numbered 38,818. In the upcoming 2012 election, the population is somewhere around 311 million and around 200 million plus eligible to vote. This represents a wide diverse spectrum of special interests. The net result is, as the population has grown, so has the demands placed on the government.
When one looks at the history of our nation and the ebb and flow of support for community sovereignty or support for personal sovereignty, you soon begin to see patterns emerge. The most prominent cycle is the movement back and forth between conservatism and liberalism. This cycle is normally somewhere between 30 to 35 years. A much longer cycle is the cycle between personal sovereignty and communal sovereignty movement. This seems to mirror changes in the change in economic cycles. If we look at both cycles, it is logical to conclude that we will soon leave the conservatism launched by Ronald Reagan and a new focus on economics as indicated by the Great Recession. We had a change in economic systems at the close of the Great Depression. Now what does that have to do with government direction?
I think we reached the zenith of political conservatism in 2010. As the conservative movement begins its long journey toward its nadir, the nature of government will again be redefined. The government to come will be one where nagging problems will finally be addressed, such as a single payer healthcare. I also see a change in the approach to education, with post secondary education being picked up by the government. Also, entitlement programs will be changed to become real training to work movements for those able to work. At present we have absolutely no idea of the long range impact on the Information Age on the government. Government will use information technology to modify the bureaucracies to become more responsive and user friendly to the citizenry. We can expect a new fifty year cycle of communal sovereignty focused government.
To counter Ronald Reagan’s famous quote from his inaugural speech in 1981; “government is the problem” has now been revealed to be false, extreme political conservatism is the problem.
Smaller government entities have not worked, such as state governments, since not all states are created equal and have equal access to resources. For example: compare the state governments of Massachusetts to the that of Mississippi. By any measure, Massachusetts is extremely wealthy compared to Mississippi. As expected, the level and quality of services available to citizens of Massachusetts is greater than those that can be offered in Mississippi. (continued)
As I have stated, I am clearly on the side of Jefferson; while a federal or centralized governtment is a neccessity, it needs to be limited in its scope. The scope, set forth by the Declaration of Independence, was that the federal government need be more concerned to foreign affairs, national defense and immigration, as well as a centralized currency. All other matters were to be determined by the individual states. We have long gone down that slippery slope of justification of the expanded role as pooling resources, however with getting those resources, the federal government became the arbitor of what is fair and unfair and as a way to enforce it, placed many restrictions or mandates to tap into those pooled resources. Education is just one example. The federal government has provide funding for local school districts through state goverments. With those came certain mandates, which in most cases, cost more than the funding they were receiving.
I guess you missed the part wherein Hoffa and McClusky expressly limited their comparison of Hamilton and today's Democratic Party to their sentiments about their fellow man. We never went into matters of fiscal policy. We were merely comparing the singular trait. Of course all men are made up of many parts, including our founders. But Hoffa agrees with you that the system was intentionally designed to promote a struggle between differing ideologies, as our founders, although united in their cause, all came to the table with differing bends, and it was the only way in which all could be satisfied and willing to sign on with the result. In other words, our founding documents were intentionally vague and ambiguous. And the struggle between ideologies continues. It's just a lot more prevalent in this election than it otherwise has been in quite some time.
The House, ever since returning to Republican control, has been piling up a huge backlog of bills for the Senate to consider, and yet you claim it is the fault of the "do nothing Congress." Yeah, OK! Try the Democratically controlled 'do nothing Senate,' and a President whose leadership is so poor that he can't even garner a single vote of support from his own party on his proposed budget, so he just gives up. It's time for real hope and change! ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!
Hamilton on the other hand, saw the federal government as a way to protect people from themselves. He thought that the general population needed a more centralized government, rather than be left to their own demise. Also fiscally conservative, but more on involvement into peronal well-being of the citzentry. Democrats, at least since FDR, have generally been in this camp. Madison, in may ways was the go between. Believed that both Hamilton and Jefferson made valid points and governed from more a centrist stance to both philosophies. Also a fiscal conservative. Why I compare Madison to the Beltway Republicans is that theBeltway's are not comfortable in the new expectations of the TEA Party but realize that as a growing segment of their voting base, they must appease them. Although, in this election cycle, the Beltways won out on the nominee as Romney clearly governed as a moderate in Mass., which is a role the Beltways are more comfortable with.
Nuitari, just a seat in the lifeboat no matter what you paid for your ticket would be enough.
That, actually, has nothing to do with the President as far as I am concerned. We have lost the ability to compromise for some reason. It wasn't like this when I was going through most of my adult years. Besides, I am proud to be part of the history making America that finally voted a black man into the Presidency....... :-) (although with the electoral college, etc....was I a part?)
Hoffa stands down, matey! ;-)
Personally, Hoffa prefers to select his elected leaders/representatives/jurists premised on merit, platform, and reputation. But, if skin color is what floats your boat, more power to ya!
I suppose as I know too many people that do judge by skin color, that election, I did put that as my primary reason and I suspect if a woman came along that had the credentials you listed, I would put female at the top once again just to bare proof that a woman can run the country. So, on my part, I can see that it sounds as though that might be my only criteria for Obama. We just need to get back to a democracy again.....get rid of the patriot act......!!!!!!!!!!!
You are exactly their kind of voter: someone who does not think about the issues nor about the larger societal good. It is tremendously disappointing that so many people patching really have not looked for the truth and believe the horse-hockey (a technical term) that Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers concoct out of thin air to make you afraid. Frankly, it is bigotry at is worst .
Change the 'President Obama' in his comments to 'Ryan/Romney' and he's echoing what you've been saying over and over again. You seem to be as closed minded as he is. Rather than debating or considering the merit of others' ideas, you outright dismiss or ignore any comments that aren't in line with your version of the 'truth'...
"This represents a wide diverse spectrum of special interests. The net result is, as the population has grown, so has the demands placed on the government." Really? Whenever an accomplished New Liberal Democrat writes about "special interest" or "demands placed on Government", it is an attack on Our Constitution. Our Constitution controls "WHAT" our Government can do. Not Special Interests. Our Population has nothing to do with demands on Government. Why? Because the constitution states clearly "That Congress has the power to "TAX" in order to-------"Pay the bills of the United States" (Article 1 Sec8) Note , that Liberals have taken a simple rule of Law and have transformed it to "paying the Bills of Citizens". That is being done by Taxing and giving it back to certain groups as "Education Credits" as "Energy assistance" and "Auto Clunker" $4,000 checks and "1st time Homebuyer" $8,000 checks. No where in our Simple constitutional laws is it even mentioned to provide "Full Welfare" for every citizen. No , it says "General Welfare" WHO DO YOU REALLY BLAME FOR CREATING "Special interest groups"? Finally, The population growth has zero affect on placing "new Demands" on our government. The dollars might be larger, But the Consitutional Demands are still the same. SO EVERYONE THINK ------VOTES! Votes= The Largest Special interest. Votes =Music to the Liberal's ears.
You forgot to acknowledge the newest and biggest area of government growth, likely because it casts a dark shadow on your own utopia, the increased creation of non-elected government agencies that have been given power that in the past was only allowed by elected officials. The health care law is one of the biggest as it gives vast amounts of authority over our health care to an appointed official. Then you have MMSD that can dump limitless amounts of fecal matter while raising taxes and yet they are all appointed. This president has appointed how many Czars that are making policy over our lives? The appointed Federal Reserve is making money worthless and the electorate can do nothing about it. I could go on because there are countless agencies that fall into this group. That is what is causing the separation between the people and government. It is the liberal creation (sometimes republican supported) removal of the rights of the electorate that is destroying the country. The main reason for appointed agencies is the reduction in freedom the people have to direct the government. Reagan was right regarding government being the problem and it is your political movement using it to destroy freedoms. That is the legacy of today's conservative. To prevent the removal of our freedoms by liberals and Obama Republicans.
Demands on government has become so complicated that it requires managers appointed who are experts, thus the tzars. As far as MMSD, how else could it be done? The current setup was designed for efficiency and take the politics and possible graft out of the process.
First, lets use the word 'experts' very liberally when we are talking about czars or others who have gotten their job because they are well connected. If these positions are so required, then why are they not elected? More importantly, does our government not pay hundreds of people nationally as advisors? What are our elected officials doing if they need these appointed agencies to do the job for which they were elected? This is just more of the same piling on of bureaucratic BS on top of more regulation on top of more taxation without representation. In truth, it is the liberal policy of removing freedom. Furthermore, your statement, "Demands on government has become so complicated" is you and your ilks continued arrogance that assumes the people are not smart enough to care for themselves. These not elected 'managers' are required because we can't expect the American people to elect the correct person. The actual size of government employment is immaterial if, for example, the MMSD board of 7 people can increase taxation on nearly 1million citizens without the citizens having a say. The HHS is a single not elected individual who has been given far reaching authority over the health care of the entire country. Our founding was built on the fact that we had no representation with the king over our own taxation. Please explain to me how a board of not elected 'experts' deciding taxation or regulation is any different?