Conservative Republicans since Ronald Reagan have bashed government in all forms. They use the term BIG GOVERNMENT as a key word of disdain for anything governmental. What they are really saying is they do not want any regulatory oversight of business and finance. But regulatory oversight of personal life is OK. But when you hate government so much, governing then becomes a problem. How can you govern a country or state if you hate government, thus hate yourself when you have control of legislation and administration? Conservatives also believe that states retain all power and not the federal government or the people. To them the Republic is a collection of sovereign states that only grants very limited rights to the federal government. Of recent, they believe the rule by the majority, unless they are the minority, then it is the rule by the minority. That is where Progressives differ with Conservatives.
Progressives do not see government inherently evil. Instead they look at government as either Good, meaning assisting its citizens to achieve a quality standard of living and longevity, equal social justice and separation of power within the branches of government, separation of church and state, and fairness and oversight in the market place, or BAD, meaning an over bearing and intrusive government that violates a person's civil liberties and allows anarchy in the open market place. So progressives strive for GOOD Government that effectively oversees industries known to abuse their inherent power so as to maintain a fair and level playing field within those industries and the market place. By doing so it protects consumers from abuses by business and finance, and defends citizens civil liberties for everyone. Progressive feel the power should always remain with the people, not with the states, the federal government or corporations. We progressive believe that corporations are not equal citizens to the individual person, but a entity that is granted a limited privilege to operate for the benefit of the people.
Progressives believe in the right of an individual to work hard and obtain great wealth, the same as conservatives, but that there is an inherent moral responsibility of those who do obtain great wealth to give some of it back to the people that gave them that great wealth. At times that requires a tax structure that forces those of great wealth without moral conviction to give back to those who made them rich in the first place through social programs that provides safety nets in times of need, such as Social Security and Medicare, FEMA, etc.
That is why progressives lean more Democratic than Republican. Progressive see governance as a stepped process; first all power is held by the people and it is the people who grants selective power to the various governance bodies, such as local, county, state, and federal governments. Second, to sustain the union of the various states there is a need for granting certain power to the federal government to create greater standardization between the states. Part of this is to insure that citizens can expect the same treatment and civil liberties as they travel from one state to then next. The federal system is also to balance the natural economic power that certain states have, such as California or New York with agricultural states like Mississippi, Iowa, Nebraska, and less populated states like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah.
It is true that since the Civil War, government services and agencies have greatly increased. In part that is due to population expansion, technology that has allowed very easy migration from state to state and communication between all citizens. The people demanded more of their government, safer food, clean water, waste treatment to reduce illness, better roads and highway, better railway system, our national parks and recreation areas. When we had the Great Depression, the people wanted accountability of banks and businesses, they asked government to regulate them to protect the people from abuse. As populations exploded, many citizens felt it was necessary to protect the environment and wildlife and asked government to take the lead on this with creating another agency. Poor school districts had a hard time educating the populace and their states where in just as bad a shape, so they asked the federal government for assistance by asking richer states to assist them, thus the education department. As our world has become more complex and smaller by comparison, the federal government has been asked to take more responsibility for services that local and state governments are not capable of doing. Additionally, for some services it made sense that these government services are equal and standardized across all states to make it easier for people to move from state to state.
To effectively shrink government, you have to eliminate services that government provides. Conservative feel that private enterprise can provide these services. The question is, can they do it at the same or lower cost? Most economist say no. By privatizing these government services could increase the cost to the people. Yes, taxes may go down, but your total out of pocket expense for the same level of service will increase.
So the real question is: Do you want Good Government or Small or No Government? The best approach would be to do a cost benefit analysis to determine which would be most cost effective. Absent of that, how can you state one over the other, other than we have a proven record with current services provided by government.
For me I know I have some ability to have a say in the government operated services through my vote and complaints to my representatives. I have very little if any ability to have a say for services provided by a corporation, unless I own sufficient stock shares to control the board of directors. The ordinary citizen will not have that opportunity. Yes, some corporations will react to bad PR, but more and more are becoming immune to even this pressure as they obtain greater control of our legislators in Congress and State Houses. Competition is not always the great equalizer that capitalist purists theorize. In fact history has shown that it is not when large mergers are permitted and there becomes dominance by a single corporation in an industry. Or in the case of health insurance companies that are exempt from anti-trust laws.
There has to be a balance between the free market and consumer protection through governmental oversight.
However, there is a recent study that suggests that our political leanings are more hard wired in our brains than environmental association. The study shows that those who are conservative have a greater fear level and higher sensitivity to perceived threats, reacting with greater force, utilizing weapons in more of an offensive move than defensive. They would rather fight than be diplomatic. Progressive are more likely to want to resolve conflict through negotiation and are not as fearful to perceived threats. This explains Pres. Obama's calm nature in dealing with terrorists and VP Dick Cheney is so fearful, in almost a panic mode. Conservative tend to be more self interested than Progressives who are more willing to share, even if it costs them something. If it is true that we are hardwired from birth regarding these issues, then only the randomness of birth will determine how a given population may lean politically and socially. This will also determine how they govern. Obviously there is a great pendulum between the extremes of these two mind sets, so it is always hoped that the majority of the population are somewhere in the middle.
No comments:
Post a Comment