Sunday, October 24, 2010


LESS GOVERNMENT?

Less Government!!!! This is an idiot’s mantra shouted from housetops and on the lips of many a hysteric. In fact, in a recent editorial in the local Springfield paper, a comment was made about a politician that for whatever other flaws he might have, at least he advocated less government. This betrays an appalling lack of understanding of history and/or politics. Embedded within this complaint are elements that are partly true but mostly false.

First, a bit of humor. Those who have seen the movie Amadeus which showcases the life of Mozart might remember a scene when a small minded minister convinces the Austrian emperor that Mozart’s music is wonderful but contains “too many notes.” The theory proposed was that there are only so many notes the human ear can assimilate. So the emperor orders Mozart to reduce the number of notes in his music. Mozart replies something to the effect that there are just as many notes as he requires and asks in frustration which notes should be sacrificed.

Similarly, with the argument about the size of government, less government as a political slogan is mindless. There should be just as much government as needed to conduct public business. You might then ask: what is its business? Well, for starters we all assume that the government will ensure a safe supply of drinking water, a police force, schools, firemen, libraries, roads, bridges and sidewalks, courts and legislatures, elaborate systems of record keeping, enforcement of regulations to ensure the safety of food, consumer products, and the conditions in restaurants, etc. In a modern, fast-paced and complex society, the list is quite long. The services provided and the rights safeguarded are many. So which of these are you willing to forego? None you say. That isn’t the issue you say. We want all these things and more but we want them delivered more efficiently with less waste of our precious tax dollars. Now that is certainly an intelligent complaint. Why not “Honest Government” or “Efficient Government” as a demand? Most of us could get behind that.

Calls for “less government” are as sensible as children calling for “less parenting” or felons calling for “less justice.” Remember, the author of that 18th century riddle “Government governs best that governs least” was Thomas Paine, probably the most radical of American revolutionaries. Paine denounced religion as a human invention and supported the French revolution. How about “less cherrypicking” the quotes of 18th century radicals.

It is not too hard to find the motive behind these calls for less government.  Cui Bono - to whom the good? - is still the best question to ask when wanting to get to the bottom of something.  Those who do not wish to be regulated, those not wishing to pay their fair share, those who think that in the delirium caused by starving government of power their fondest wishes will come to pass.  They are playing a fool's game.  All that will be achieved will be the creation of a momentary vacuum which will be filled by an increased power and sovereign entity even more difficult to control.  But it is obvious that were we to judge the efficiency of government by the general level of public education and sophistication, those presently in charge of providing that basic service have much to answer for. 

1 comment:

  1. You and I have different assumptions about what government is for. I believe it is to protect property rights and to enforce laws against violence... that's it. On the local level, we can agree to have a lot more things like firemen, libraries, roads, bridges, and sidewalks, but those funds should not be brought from the federal level. The idea that it is the job of the government to be our nanny and protect us from cradle to grave is preposterous. I don't need to be "safeguarded" from the dangers of modern society with millions of rules and regulations from huge bureaucracies. Take the TSA for example. Let me get on a plane without all the hassle and borderline sexual harassment and I'LL ACCEPT ALL THE RISK. Let me ride my motorcycle without a helmet if I want (I don't have a motorcycle, I'm just making a point). If I could have every penny I've paid to social security back and opt out right now, I would. If I could pay less in taxes and not get medicare when I'm old, I'd be all for it. If I could decide which charities to give to rather than dumping my tax money into the failing welfare state, I would in a heartbeat. I'm not saying this because I don't want to pay my fair share, but because I think we'd be MUCH better off without it and we'd have more liberty. You claim that, "All that will be achieved will be the creation of a momentary vacuum which will be filled by an increased power and sovereign entity even more difficult to control." If we follow the constitution, we will be in no danger of this and the balance of power will shift to the states. So yes...Less government.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
Springfield, Missouri, United States
I have been a professor of sociology at Missouri State University in Springfield for the past twenty years. My undergraduate degree is from Stanford University in Psychology and my graduate degree in sociology was obtained from the University of California, San Francisco. The sociology department at UCSF was dedicated to the study of medical sociology and took a strong symbolic interactionist perspective. My mentors were Virginia Olesen, Leonard Schatzman, and Anselm Strauss. Further biographic details may be discussed in the posts but this blog has as its purpose the discussion of issues that flow out of the study of political economy and the social and cultural life of our present world. I have called this blog "asimplecountrysociologist" because that collection of words carries with it the irony that I feel every day, embedded as I am in the American midwest.