This piece originally appeared at Speak Out California
As an experiment, try substituting the words, "We, the People" every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people. This really does change the way we understand the relationship between our government and ourselves, doesn't it?
The other day I brought up the example of Ronald Reagan's famous saying, "Government is the problem." When you look at that saying in this new way, he is saying "We, The People are the problem." Doesn't that sound like he is expressing a profoundly anti-democratic sentiment? Is that really what we want our leaders to be promoting?
How many other places do we discover similar anti-democratic sentiments? How about when we hear about "limited government?" Are conservatives saying that they want to limit the power of the people? What about when they talk about getting rid of government regulations? Do conservatives want to stop the people from regulating what corporations do? When you think about what their words really mean, it sure starts to sound that way.
Conservatives have worked hard to make "government" a bad word. They complain about "big government." They complain about "government schools." But what happens when we substitute a form of "We, the People" into their slogans? The whole meaning seems to change.
Behind-the-scenes conservative leader Grover Norquist is known (to some of us) for having said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Think about what he is saying about democracy there. He wants to drown it!
Besides fewer decisions made by "the government," another thing conservatives say they want is more decisions made by the "private sector." Let's examine what these words really mean. Business.com offers this definition of "private sector": "Part of national economy made up of, and resources owned by, private enterprises." Wikipedia offers, "In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is both run for profit and is not controlled by the state."
So when conservatives say more decisions should be made by the private sector than by the government, aren't they saying that instead of We, The People making decisions we should hand the decision-making power over to the corporations? Is this really what we want?
Sure, the words about "smaller government" and "deregulation" sound good, but when you really think about what they are saying, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. At least, if we think democracy is a good idea, that is.
Comments (3)
I think the problem progressives have is a government public relations issue. The idea that "we the people" EVER do anything of value is non-existent. Where is a website that boasts of the great things "we the people" accomplish? Where are media ads that proclaim proudly the numbers of people served and lives saved and enriched?
The conservative PR machine is great at creating a false impression that all government is bad. Why can't their be a PR machine which promotes all the wonderful things accomplished with tax dollars? Why do so many of us avoid taxes like the plague? Why don't we feel good every April about how many people we help with our taxes?
Why isn't every 1040 form enclosed in a cover sheet with pictures of children getting government services, national parks, and medical research saving lifes? Why is taxation a cold sterile process instead of a life giving opportunity to share?
If I were president, the first thing I would do is appoint a PR chariman to help restore faith in our government.
Posted by Progression of Faith![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/CIBlog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 26, 2007 8:04 AM
Posted on December 26, 2007 08:04
I suppose it can be fun to redefine your political opponents' words, and then pretend that your new definitions render the other guy's argument untenable. But here's another fun thing you could try: See what kind of constructions result when you replace the words "big government" with "entrenched civil service bureaucracy" or "career politicians beholden to monied interests."
That's what people like Reagan and Grover Norquist were actually complaining about. To reimagine their core beliefs through the miracle of semantic sleight-of-hand is rather a pointless excercise, don't you think? All you've accomplished with this little thought experiment is that you've set up and demolish a straw man. Perhaps it helps you feel good about believing yourself to be on the side of the angels. But beyond that, this kind of transparently flawed argument convinces no one of anything, and adds nothing useful to the debate.
If anything could be said to have driven me into the clutches of the "other side," it is the frequency and tenacity with which your party faithful adhere to arguments that can almost invariably be reduced to logical fallacy. At the risk of indulging, ironically, in a fallacy of my own, perhaps you could explain to me why so many thoughtful Democratic pundits either don't seem to notice -- or simply don't care.
Posted by Oplyd Oleo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/CIBlog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 20, 2008 8:22 AM
Posted on February 20, 2008 08:22
The difference between substituting "We the People" for "government" rather than the substitutions that Oplyd Oleo (applied synthetic fat?) suggests is that "We the People" are the ones in whose name our country was founded. Recall the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the People, in order for form a more perfect union...." That means that if We the People don't like having an "entrenched civil service bureaucracy" (AKA career government workers, most of whom know how to do their jobs), we should be able to pressure our elected representatives to change the civil service system. If We the People are fed up with "career politicians beholden to monied interests", we can vote them out of office or even change the campaign financing system.
You don't find career civil servants trying to eliminate their own jobs--and it's not their responsibility to do so. You don't find the big monied interests, with which Ronald Reagan and Grover Norquist were/are intimately familiar (as are most politicians of both major political parties), eager to give up their careers or refuse the largess of monied interests--again, they don't see it as being in their interests to do so.
The big difference is that the government, and responsibility for how it functions, SHOULD belong to We the People. And it IS the responsibility of the people to reclaim their government.
Instead of bashing government and trying to alienate citizens from the government, it would be more constructive to have public dialogue about how we might make our government function most effectively for the benefit of all the people. Would this imply eliminating redundancy and waste where they exist? Overturning the series of court decisions that have made money equivalent to freedom of speech? OK. I think Johnson's post is designed to encourage the citizens to take responsibility for their government, as they should. And then to act on the conclusions.
Posted by Kate![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/CIBlog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 26, 2008 4:11 PM
Posted on February 26, 2008 16:11