Pages

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Government Gangrene

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -- John Adams
Articulate liberal James Fallows  has written a long piece entitled "How America Can Rise Again."  I don't agree with his conclusion, but he's a great writer and his assessment of our current situation is an entertaining think piece.

The Choice:  More Government (Big Enough to Finally Succeed) or Less Government (decommission a failed enterprise)
For tomorrow, we really have only two choices. Doing more, or doing less. Trying to work with our flawed governmental system despite its uncorrectable flaws, or trying to contain the damage that system does to the rest of our society. Muddling through, or starving the beast.
Dutiful progressive that he is, he picks the wrong option:
Readers may have guessed that I am not going for the second option: giving up on public efforts and cauterizing our gangrenous government so that the rest of society can survive.
He then constructs a strawman to advance his case:  Conservatives, like a third-world rabble, want to abolish all government.  Having unfairly smeared us, he then scolds us to look at what that has done to the world's failed societies:
But the lack of corresponding public virtues—rule of law, expectation of physical safety, infrastructure that people can enjoy or depend on without owning it themselves—made those societies more hellish than they needed to be.
No small government conservative in his right mind would advocate a complete withdrawal of government from public life.  That's anarchy!  

Conservatives Understand, Government is a Necessary Evil
We love our infrastructure and rule of law, but most of us wouldn't mind seeing the feral government burn a few libraries worth of nanny state, liberty-killing regulations.  Does congress really need to hold hearings on professional sports and regulate flush toilets

Fallows predictably advocates for more government action, citing John Quincy Adams' construction of lighthouses as an example of proto-big government.

He should have looked to the constitution and the Federalist Papers.  There he would find government as the impartial referee and the blind judge, steered only by the God-given rights of man and the light of our founding document.  Where the federal behemoth no longer casts a shadow, a million flowers will bloom.
"cauterize our gangrenous government so that the rest of society can survive."
Yes.  That's more like it...

10 comments:

Christopher said...

Great commentary on your part Silverfiddle.

I did not link to the full article but was struck by one line; "Trying to work with our flawed governmental system despite its uncorrectable flaws".

Nothing is "uncorrectable". The Constitution for instance was a correction from past practices (European) and furthermore was constructed so as to correct itself should the people desire (ammendments).

Essentially he advocates compounding the flaws he states by growing government yet even more.

Silverfiddle said...

Yup, and the "uncorrectable flaws" are the progressive carbuncles that now infest our government.

It is liberal programs that are uncorrectable and unworkable.

Christopher said...

Well again I say nothing is uncorrectable. The unpopular but required word / action in government / law to correct these flaws is REPEAL.

Silverfiddle said...

"The unpopular but required word / action in government / law to correct these flaws is REPEAL."

Amen Brother! Roll it back.

The challenge for the GOP (if they really want to repeal the liberal tangle) is a linguistic one.

How to you talk about doing such things without using retro, backward-looking language.

If they can articulate this in an optimistic, future-looking way, they will win, and win big.

WomanHonorThyself said...

G'mornin my friend!:)...yes that is more like it!!!

Christopher said...

I agree on the right message but without a long disortation I believe in short that in a recession with ever more burdensome taxation on the State level that money would be a big motivating factor meaning more money in our own pockets while sacrificing (repealing) all the failed social programs at taxpayer expense.

The trick is as you suggest a linguistic one,

Fredd said...

James Fallows' argument is gibberish. I immediately disagree with either of his premises: we only have two choices to allocate our national resources, that of 1) a rapacious capitalistic system that destroys from within, or 2) a cumbersome but in the long run benevolent government.

Baloney and gobbledegook. His liberal views of either of these choices is inaccurate to say the least.

Silverfiddle said...

Fredd: That's why I just highlighted a few excerpts. Normally I suggest readers go read the whole thing, but I didn't in this case because it would only make the reader dumber.

He spouts claptrap, but he does it so articulately...

Fredd said...

Yes, I agree that the more I read of his garbage, the dumber I got.

Finntann said...

The key is "enumerated powers"...

Enumerated: To count off, name one by one, list.

If not enumerated, they are not legitimate... as in regulating flush toilets, something that legitimately is the purview of the states.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.