Thomas Jefferson wrote those words on the Declaration of Independence. He wished an end to tyrannical monarchical rule. He favored small government by the people and for the people. He found the first political party; the Republican Party.
The original ideals of the Republican Party were certainly laudable. Smaller government involvement meant less interference and more freedom to be innovative and discover accelerators to profit. For much of America's history it was okay embrace it's ideals blindly. However, somewhere along the line the Republican Party lost its way. Somewhere along the line it stopped being a party for the people and started being a party of selfishness. Part of that is not it's own fault. Our society has changed. Since 1776 our nation has become a powerhouse, partially due to isolation and our ability to pick and choose our fights, partially because the elements of pecuniary progress have allowed it to happen, and partially because of the luck we had that much of Europe and Asia involved itself in several devastating wars. Since 1776 women have gained the right to vote. We had a civil war and Blacks have increasingly, in fits and starts, become more closely integrated into society. Advances in technology and transportation have allowed the spread of genes to our four corners. Yes, we've changed a lot, but politics on one side have not.
The Democratic Party used to be a foul and disgraceful entity. It used to represent the most racist and richest parts of society. Eventually, it did evolve and change with the times. It has come to represent all aspects of society and left its sordid past far behind. The Republican Party has been less flexible over the same time. It continues to believe strongly in the concept of small government involvement. It feels that people and businesses should not be restrained from pursuing their efforts whatever the cost. Somewhere along the line it stopped being a party for the people. It stopped caring.
It's fine when a nation is young and scratching for survival to embrace those elements that allow it the best tools to make it. At some point though, freedom has to stop being a license to trample over everyone else for selfish gains. At some point you have to reach for more than what you are. It's called enlightenment and it means the a measure of the self should be sacrificed for the betterment of others. Let's look at this more closely.
Small government is a laudable goal. Who wants or needs 'Big Brother' looking over your shoulder and dictating to you? What small government means is stronger state government. If this were embraced truly what would this mean to our society? If the Democratic Party were suddenly banned, what would be the repercussions? First, federal taxes would be eliminated. Fine, but how to pay all those countless billions to the military? It would mean stronger state governments. Fine, but in a nation of 50 nations how would decisions be made? Who would dictate in a time of war that Wyoming had to send a certain amount of people to the Middle East to fight? What if Wyoming refused? What makes one state stronger than another? Shouldn't they all be equal partners, or is this the same kind of equal that the Republicans suggest when they really mean rule by the strong and the weak be damned?
Government exists to collect our resources, to have a central authority in cases and times that such decisions are necessary, and to protect those that individually cannot be served outside a collective. Can federal taxes be removed? Sure, but where does the military get it's funds then? State-run schools will not get federal subsidies, students won't have federal loans or grants, and elements of infrastructure will be dependent on state taxes exclusively. So, we couldn't really go to war (not a wholly bad thing, but how to defend ourselves?), our kids couldn't go to college unless our parents could afford it (is this starting to sound elitist to you too?), and only the wealthier states could afford to maintain a good infrastructure. So, states with smaller populations would see highways and bridges fall to ruin. Only the wealthy would see their children off to college, and the wishes of the rich would be visited upon the multitudes in the form of laws favoring them. Laws already do, but it would run unchecked in a decentralized system.
-- to be continued --
The original ideals of the Republican Party were certainly laudable. Smaller government involvement meant less interference and more freedom to be innovative and discover accelerators to profit. For much of America's history it was okay embrace it's ideals blindly. However, somewhere along the line the Republican Party lost its way. Somewhere along the line it stopped being a party for the people and started being a party of selfishness. Part of that is not it's own fault. Our society has changed. Since 1776 our nation has become a powerhouse, partially due to isolation and our ability to pick and choose our fights, partially because the elements of pecuniary progress have allowed it to happen, and partially because of the luck we had that much of Europe and Asia involved itself in several devastating wars. Since 1776 women have gained the right to vote. We had a civil war and Blacks have increasingly, in fits and starts, become more closely integrated into society. Advances in technology and transportation have allowed the spread of genes to our four corners. Yes, we've changed a lot, but politics on one side have not.
The Democratic Party used to be a foul and disgraceful entity. It used to represent the most racist and richest parts of society. Eventually, it did evolve and change with the times. It has come to represent all aspects of society and left its sordid past far behind. The Republican Party has been less flexible over the same time. It continues to believe strongly in the concept of small government involvement. It feels that people and businesses should not be restrained from pursuing their efforts whatever the cost. Somewhere along the line it stopped being a party for the people. It stopped caring.
It's fine when a nation is young and scratching for survival to embrace those elements that allow it the best tools to make it. At some point though, freedom has to stop being a license to trample over everyone else for selfish gains. At some point you have to reach for more than what you are. It's called enlightenment and it means the a measure of the self should be sacrificed for the betterment of others. Let's look at this more closely.
Small government is a laudable goal. Who wants or needs 'Big Brother' looking over your shoulder and dictating to you? What small government means is stronger state government. If this were embraced truly what would this mean to our society? If the Democratic Party were suddenly banned, what would be the repercussions? First, federal taxes would be eliminated. Fine, but how to pay all those countless billions to the military? It would mean stronger state governments. Fine, but in a nation of 50 nations how would decisions be made? Who would dictate in a time of war that Wyoming had to send a certain amount of people to the Middle East to fight? What if Wyoming refused? What makes one state stronger than another? Shouldn't they all be equal partners, or is this the same kind of equal that the Republicans suggest when they really mean rule by the strong and the weak be damned?
Government exists to collect our resources, to have a central authority in cases and times that such decisions are necessary, and to protect those that individually cannot be served outside a collective. Can federal taxes be removed? Sure, but where does the military get it's funds then? State-run schools will not get federal subsidies, students won't have federal loans or grants, and elements of infrastructure will be dependent on state taxes exclusively. So, we couldn't really go to war (not a wholly bad thing, but how to defend ourselves?), our kids couldn't go to college unless our parents could afford it (is this starting to sound elitist to you too?), and only the wealthier states could afford to maintain a good infrastructure. So, states with smaller populations would see highways and bridges fall to ruin. Only the wealthy would see their children off to college, and the wishes of the rich would be visited upon the multitudes in the form of laws favoring them. Laws already do, but it would run unchecked in a decentralized system.
-- to be continued --
Comments