Government On Our Backs

You don’t have to go far to hear this old refrain: “I just wish the government would get off our backs”. You hear this old saw or some version of it in almost every quarter. It isn’t reserved for “grumpy old man-ville” or Republican-burg anymore. It’s just about everywhere where people believe they may be losing some level of control in their lives and government becomes an easy scape-goat. The whole question about the role and size of government in our lives has given me something to think about, particularly in the last week. The events in Boston and West, Texas are just the last in series of events that have me thinking about what role government plays our unique American culture. The more I think about it, the more I concluded that when it comes to government and American culture, we are really an inconsistent and incomprehensible bunch of people.    

I’m very pleased that law enforcement was able to solve the horrific bombing crime in Boston and capture or kill (his choice) the likely perpetrators. That's a great example of government functioning at its best. Now that the arrest has been made, the usual cadre of hyper-critical Senators and Congress-persons are more than eager to jump in and criticize the work of the FBI and the decisions about how to bring the suspect to justice. Chief among the cadre of the critical are Republican Senators who believe he should declared an “enemy combatant” and tried in military courts- Lindsay Graham leading the way. They are also questioning everything about what the government knew about the two brothers and what they did. This is classic Monday morning quarterbacking played out on a national scale.It is proper to question the actions of the FBI about their previous contact with the brothers- but for me this raises a more basic question. My question is about how much power the government should have to control people based on their beliefs. I understand these two men became American citizens, guaranteeing their basic right to believe as they wish. I’m not defending the actions that ultimately grew out of their beliefs- only that government is not supposed to (and cannot) practice mind control over people and impose prior restraint. It is interesting to me that the most conservative politicians (i.e. those who want the smallest government) are also the ones calling for an all-knowing and all controlling government when they see someone as the “the enemy” or “the other”- and it fits their political agenda.  

We must recognize that the incredible effort to identify those two brothers in Boston was based on the use of a very pervasive video surveillance system that can watch all of us all of the time. I’m not questioning the value of that system to identify criminals- but, I am pointing out that the American tradition is to enjoy privacy and to reject government intrusion or surveillance of our private lives- yet we kind of like it when it works for us. It was the government after all who put those cameras there and has access to all the data on our movements, any time they want to use it. These are the inconsistencies I think about when I consider some of the underlying issues that surface when horrific events happen. Let’s remember that after the 9-11 attacks, Congress quickly passed the Patriot Act, which may be the single biggest threat to basic freedoms in our history, while saying they did it to protect our freedoms. The sting of that attack caused most of Congress and President Bush to leap head-long onto this dangerous legal ground- where they expanded the role of government exponentially beyond their own beliefs or rhetoric on small government.

Within the same week as the Marathon bombing, there was a massive explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas. Fourteen people died and many, many people were injured- threatening an entire community. I see a connection between these two events when I think about the role of government. Here was a situation that clearly called out for government oversight, but there was none. Our government didn’t even know of this plant. But we now know that the operators were working with several thousand times the amount of ammonium nitrate the law allows without over-site. In the constant cry to stop government regulation and get government off our backs this needless loss of life flies in the face of that plea. Republicans blame the Obama administration for over-regulating business and deepening the recession. The facts are that the Bush administration instituted more regulations- but then never enforced them. You might recall that during those Bush years we had more food supply contamination problems than any other time in our history and more imported products coming to the country with toxic materials. (remember lead paint on baby toys?) Every time one of these episodes occurred the people asked, “Where’s the government? They’re supposed keep this from happening”. But there is never a consistent answer because we’re an inconsistent bunch. We don’t want government on our back- unless it’s for some reason we like or it deals with one particular problem. We tend to treat government over-site like an entitlement when it affects our ability to buy hamburger. 

I’m not suggesting how much government we’re supposed to have. I’m suggesting that this question may be the central debate of our time because so many of the issues we are grappling with today eventually circle back to this basic question. We're stuck on this issue because the characteristics of the American culture are colliding head-on with the practicalities of governing a country of over 300 million people that was founded on the principles of individual liberty and freedom. The collision of those two forces reveals the inconsistencies we are dealing with today.

 

Here are a few examples to illustrate this conflict of traditional cultural values vs. modern day realities. Many in Congress will argue to the death to get government out of our lives – but will easily inject government control into our marriages, sex lives, and reproductive choices. What could be more “government on our backs” than that? In the area of basic safety and security you have seen us mobilize the whole of national resources because of an attack that killed three people in Boston, but the idea of stopping thirty thousand deaths a year from gun violence can't even be defined as an issue of basic safety; because our culture says guns are a part of us and the Second Amendment cannot be touched. By adding the “terrorism” label we permit ourselves all kinds of intrusive excesses to enforce laws, when another kind of basic safety issue kills 10,000 times more people every year and our leaders won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. On personal privacy, which is integral to a free society, we readily give it all away, because Dick Cheney told us they can "WMD" us to death, and we just believed it without a shred of hard evidence. We respond to fear by sacrificing the one thing we hold most precious and defines who we are. Of course there is no NRA-like lobby (or industry) to defend the Fourth Amendment, like there is for the Second Amendment. On religious freedom, we will rail against any kind of government intrusion to impose reproductive health provisions in our national health care system because of religiously based objections, but we will literally persecute any Muslim in this country and characterize them all as ”radical Islamists”- based on our residual fear and hatred from the attack on 9-11. Where was the outcry to warn us about “radical Christianity” following the Oklahoma City bombing or mention of the ballooning Militia Movement that is so openly hostile to our government and huge portions of our population? If there had been a Christian chapel built on the site of the Murrah Building bombing it would have been seen as a pious act of respect for the victims, even though McVay was a radical Christian. But when (U.S. citizen) Muslims wanted to build an Islamic community center near ground zero in Manhattan it was viewed as a disrespectful outrage and was prohibited.  Our ideas about what is dangerous and how government intersects with our lives aren’t based on the nature of actions-unless we can also cast the blame on “the other” at the same time. I know there is not equivalency in all of these examples. But there is most certainly inconsistency and  bad logic in the way we approach the issues, and that is the problem.

There is so much in the culture and character of being American that is great. Those attributes are the ones that draw admiration and respect in some parts of the world, and puff us up with pride that we are Americans. We revere our freedom and independence and there is strain in us that wants justice. We tend to come together in our communities when faced with disaster. Sometimes that pride in who we are and what we’ve accomplished as a young nation also blinds us to the darker side of our character- the side that draws hatred in some parts of the globe. That's the side that doesn’t recognize the vein of racism that runs through our history and still holds us captive today. We sometimes long for yesterday and forget to plan for better tomorrow, believing our traditions leave no room for improvement. And as much as we revere justice in some areas, we neglect economic justice as the driver of a better life for all. And, we rarely deal with our hypocracy in making policy. This is the crux of the American enigma.

Perhaps the time has come to recognize we don’t live in the same kind of country we had in the late eighteenth century. Perhaps it is time to recognize that our enemies, from within and without, are not the same either. Perhaps it is time to realize that wanting and supporting the services and protections only our government can provide isn’t un-American. It just might be the most American thing about us because it speaks to a common good and a shared responsibility among us all, and toward us all. The next time we “just want the government off our backs” it might be helpful to think about what it would really be like if government wasn’t there at all, then re-examine those “rugged individualistic” characteristics that might not serve us so well in today’s world. I absolutely do not know the answer to these matters, but I believe the issue is important enough, that at this stage in the debate about government, it’s probably more important to ask the right questions instead of having all the right answers. Asking the right questions about whom we really are, who we really want to be, and how government will help or hinder that journey is our best course for the future.

Thanks for looking in.

My New Conviction

I've always had an interest in the way our government is supposed to work. Along with that, I’ve always enjoyed learning more about our history. Most of us start out learning about our country in elementary school where the concepts are simple and easy to understand. As we grow older, the same material takes on more complex and nuanced characteristics. For instance, we might have a fairly simple notion of our Revolutionary War in grade school, learning that the whole matter was about a well-spring of folks who just wanted freedom from the King of England- because freedom is a good thing. As we grow older we learn that much of the discontent was centered on the idea of unfair taxation of the colonies. And as we grow older still (and more sophisticated in our thinking and discoveries) we discover the details about how the Revolution was primarily a movement by rich landholders in the colonies who saw their financial holdings being threatened. We discover that the ideas of the Enlightenment in France became a philosophical backdrop for a revolution that was opposed by nearly 80% of the colonists- it gets more complicated  and interesting the further we dig. The point being that our ability to learn and assimilate new and more complex information is an ever changing and evolving process- as it should be.

As you and I witness the continuing ineffectiveness of our government over the last couple of decades, and most particularly over the last five years, I’m coming to a new point of view- a new conviction- about how we select our Representatives and Senators. About twenty-five years ago a movement began around the country to impose Term-Limits on members of Congress. There was a growing feeling that many in Congress were so entrenched and isolated from the people that we needed a new law to get them out of office. Back then I was absolutely against the movement. I was against term-limits for two reasons. The first was that I believed voters should always have the last say on who they elected. I believed that if a state or congressional district felt they should oust an ineffective representative they should do it at the ballot box- and only there. The second reason was that I had faith in our national institutions of government. I believed that the Senate and the House of Representatives had good reasons for establishing leadership roles based on seniority. I believed then that the seniority system in Congress actually helped produce statesmen.

I know there have always been scoundrels and charlatans in government. Our history has many examples of those who went to Congress only to enrich themselves or to enjoy the benefits of their status. Perhaps I'm still a bit nostalgic, but I believe there was a time when true statesmen emerged too. And for all the corruption that seems to follow our politics, the old system actually produced great people who went to Congress with the best intentions of governing. Some left an indelible mark on the nation: Sam Rayburn  is the most influential Speaker in our history; the great Senators include Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Robert Taft, Robert LaFollette, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Arthur Vanderberg, and Edward Kennedy- to name a few. These are people who did not necessarily represent my thinking in all things, but nonetheless provided an important influence on the direction of the nation, and for that reason they gave me hope that our grandest institutions of government were worth preserving without the need for term-limits. I have now lost hope in that notion.

Today, we see a Congress and a Senate inhabited by those seem to have only one interest: getting re-elected! There was a time when true statesmen based there re-election hopes on presenting a list of legislative accomplishments to their constituents. There was a time when the measure of a Senator or Congressperson was what they did- now that measure is what they mean to “the base”. Our politics have become so polarized  and extreme that elections are no longer decided in November- they are decided in the primaries by small, dedicated groups of political activists who control gerrymandered districts such that the outcome of general elections are a foregone conclusion. Lest you think this is just a rant by a frustrated political junkie, let me a give a few examples to support my new conviction about our Congress:

-We need a new Immigration policy/law. Today’s Congress is unwilling to tackle the immigration problem because members from both parties are literally afraid to offend their “base”. The issue is complex and multi-faceted yet nothing we hear on this subject begins to deal with the real issues.  Instead we are told that a “gang of eight” Senators will decide the matter. The problem is that even a small group of eight can’t agree on what they have decided. In truth, the entire Republican Party has deferred to a tea-party Republican with a Spanish sir-name (Rubio) because they won’t own up to their wish to do nothing except complain about border security- while relishing the unspoken truth that they want a cheap labor force to pick our fruit and vegetables for the giant agri-business interests they represent. All the while they are careful to pander to the small group of folks in the home district who might be offended if they appear to be reasonable about the "race" issue. Bottom line: no meaningful reform will take place.

-We need gun legislation. In even the face of true horror in Newtown and overwhelming popular support for some form of gun control legislation our Congress cannot take an action that 90% of Americans want. It took the Senate over a week to even decide to debate the matter, and they only did that because the parents of dead children literally stared them down and shamed them in to it. After all that, one third of the Senate still voted no to even debate it. Of course the Senate then congratulated itself on its magnanimous efforts. After all of that, the Senate couldn’t pass the least intrusive element of a solution. Of course they gave themselves permission to require 60 votes for anything to happen-practically guaranteeing failure . It probably doesn’t matter though- the House would have stopped anything the Senate might have passed. The gun lobby (NRA) is so powerful among a small group of Americans that they can intimidate the great and powerful Congress of the United States. On the day a “gang of two” Senators announced a compromise between the two of them, not one Senator would even stand in the same room with them. Republicans didn’t want to offend the NRA and Democrats in “Red” states wouldn’t risk the taint of "gun control". 30,000 people die from gun violence in this country every year and our Senate couldn't muster the smallest measure of courage to curb it.  There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country- all owned by less than 35% of us. But a relatively small group will push our cowardly Congress to another year of inaction. Shameful!!!

-We need equality in the workplace for women. Last week the leadership of the House of Representatives simply sat in an office at the Capital and decided they wouldn’t even put it up for a vote. Bottom line: there will be no action on equal pay for women for the next two years.

-We need a fiscal and economic plan for the country. For the first time in five years the Senate passed a budget resolution. Every House Republican vowed to vote against it. The House has passed several of Paul Ryan’s budget plans. They are so politically skewed and partial to the wealthy that they have no chance of ever being passed by the Senate- nor should they be. The lines are drawn and no one in the Congress will budge an inch. Most politicians understand the math but will stick to their entrenched doctrines about taxation and/or spending, and won’t even bother to appoint a conference committee to talk about it. But I assure you the members of Congress will ignore simple arithmetic if it means straying one centimeter to the right or left of their extreme ideological base. Bottom line: we have a stagnant economy that cries out for direction from government-but won’t get it. This is the reason the recession drags on!

-We need an energy and environmental policy. We need serious people who are able to see past the next fiscal quarter when it comes to developing an energy source for the future, AND we need that change to include environmental protections for the planet. The science is settled- our use of fossil fuels is damaging the planet and our ability to live on it much longer. Instead of acting like reasonable and informed people, many in Congress call it a hoax and keep pushing the “drill baby drill” position. That thinking is short sighted and dangerous but they all need oil money to fund those campaigns. So they deny their own “lying eyes” as they watch the polar ice caps melt and the weather patterns turn strangely hostile in front of them.  

It is no wonder the last Congress was the most inactive (fewest bills passed) and least effective in history. Nothing I've seen suggests this Congress will be any better.  My new conviction is to start over with a Congress that is term-limited, instead of a Congress populated by those looking for the government pension at the end of the rainbow while the majority of us suffer their foolishness. There is not one member of Congress that gives me faith in our current system. The lure of power and wealth has taken the place of the lure of patriotism. We are a long way from the founder’s vision of citizen-legislators. As much as I’d like to cling to my old convictions about the emergence of statesmen, I’m convinced it cannot happen unless we free the men and women in Congress to vote with their brains and their conscience because we remove the temptation to care only about continuous reelection bids. I’ve come to this new conviction because it is so blatantly obvious that our elected Congress and Senate can’t be trusted to look out for the greater good, instead of looking out for themselves. Sadly I say…

Thanks for looking in.