Paul Ryan's response to President Obama's State of the Union address, representing the official GOP response, stuck pretty close to Republicans stated, but not always practiced, view of government, and our Constitution:
We believe government's role is both vital and limited — to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.
We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.
We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.
Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.
The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.
Under a Republican president and a Republican congress, Republicans violated what Ryan states is a "vital and limited" role of government--"to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights"--by spying on Americans and resorting to torture, as unreliable as that method is, when it comes to extracting actionable intelligence from detainees.
In addition, Some Republicans are considering a revisit of the Constitution, declaring that parts of it, the fourteenth amendment in particular, begged to be reconsidered, to undergo a new interpretation, in light of the many children of undocumented immigrants who have been born, and now reside in, the nation.
Although subject to Republicans pressing a "reinterpretation," Ryan's reference to providing "a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves," startled, almost as much as the anachronistic placement of a cellphone at Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It not only seemed out of place for a Republican, but clearly out of character. In the months ahead, I'm sure Ryan will be given many opportunities to expound on his meaning, given that Tea Party activists would like nothing better than to slash away at Social Security and Medicare, and end government's involvement in these two entitlements altogether by privatizing it.
In place of "promote the general welfare," Ryan particularized this part of the Preamble to the US Constitution by stating without ambiguity what he believes "general Welfare" to mean--nothing short of, and to the exclusion of all other, "entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility."
Entrepreneurship, and upward mobility is promoted, that is, corporate and business interest, but for individuals, "you're on your own."
Ryan's statement encapsulates Republicanism in a few words. And suggests why a commenter on another blog says he finds Republicans "objectionable": "[I]'s the content of the Republican character."
So there is after all a role for government, that of "promoter," one who actively supports and advocates. But that's not what is often heard from those on the Right. Ryan sees government's role more narrowly: to promote business and let "individuals" fend for themselves, to "create the conditions that promote", rather than support a government hands-on approach to governance and the promotion of the "general welfare."
We shouldn't be surprised at this reinterpretation of this portion of the Preamble (Among Tea Partiers and Republicans it's now commonplace.) as it was done to fit an ideological predisposition, and to round peg a square hole.
Yoking "individual liberty" to a "limited government" hasn't held up in practice, although Ryan sees one as promoting, and assuring, the other. A "limited government" didn't prevent the institution of slavery, or black codes, or promote women's suffrage, but an expanded government did.
A "limited government" didn't prevent the outsourcing of jobs to China, and other climes, prevent our economic disaster, that followed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act [1], and brought us too big to fail, nor did it prevent the death of miners at Massey Energy Co.'s Upper Big Branch mine [2], nor the Gulf of Mexico resembling a giant ink well, the result of gushing oil from a failed blow-out preventer, a massive oil spill that threatened and damaged a fragile coastal ecosystem for months, but an expanded government would have.
It appears that just the opposite is true regarding the size of government: Rather than praising the virtues of a "limited government," perhaps we should be extolling the virtues of an expanded government, one that works for, and on behalf of, the people, and not the army of corporate special interest that usually pursue their interests at the expense of the people.
It's not the "size of government" that has diminished the people's "trust in government," but the "all-time high" corruption that has infested the government for years, a corruption that is as pervasive as the size of government that Republicans say they wish to limit.
[1] "The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007–2010."
[2]"CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The U.S. coal industry had its deadliest year in nearly two decades in 2010, with much of the death toll stemming from a single explosion.
"As of Thursday, 48 miners had died in the nation's 1,500 coal mines over the past 12months — including 29 who were killed April 5 in a blast at Massey Energy Co.'s Upper Big Branch mine. This year's was the highest death toll since 55 were killed in 1992, according to information compiled by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration. And it was much higher than the 18 killed in 2009, the industry's lowest tally since 1900, according to federal records."
4 comments:
Yet another brilliantly written post BD. You know, I feel that this debate over limited government and liberty is just a marketing ploy using buzzwords that have been pre-determined to have an appeal to their target audience. It's a false debate and means nothing.
I was watching Michelle Bachman's response the other day. She was supposed to the representing the tea party's response to the SOTU. She clearly was just reading off of a prepared speech, which is not unlike Obama or anyone else nowadays, but the thing that stands out about her is the same thing that stands out about Palin--there's absolutely nothing there.
As I mentioned, I don't watch TV very frequently at all, but if I happen to catch Fox, there always seems to be some attractive blond who's the newscaster. The person knows nothing other than how to read off the script. The Foxnews set up has basically been extended to the political realm with folks like Palin and Bachman. That set up has also been used to insert the buzzwords like "libery", "freedom" and "limited government" into the political lexicon without really defining what they really mean. Of course, that's deliberate and only for public consumption as the real deal behind the meaning is frequently hidden from the public and is against the public interest.
>>>It's not the "size of government" that has diminished the people's "trust in government," but the "all-time high" corruption that has infested the government for years, a corruption that is as pervasive as the size of government that Republicans say they wish to limit.<<<
This is the problem in a nutshell and between this and the "marketing", the consent to govern has been lost. I don't think there's any question about that. The only question is what form the non consent will evidence itself. Will that be limited to apathy or will we see some of the stuff that's occurred in Europe and the middle east?
Thanks, Greg.
"It's a false debate and means nothing."
I agree. Yet, it's a Repub talking point that leads every discussion, and is used to counter every liberal argument.
It's threadbare, but it stills get a great deal of political mileage.
"[T]he thing that stands out about her is the same thing that stands out about Palin--there's absolutely nothing there."
I agree, again. Yet, the two have amassed quite a following.
I think it's the symbolism, what people feel that they represent--the Republican-conservative values that some people have projected upon the two of them--that accounts for some of their popularity.
"Of course, that's deliberate and only for public consumption as the real deal behind the meaning is frequently hidden from the public and is against the public interest."
Indeed it is.
Every time I'm tempted to credit the American people with more smarts than their actions would indicate or support, I'm reminded of your statement above. I'm reminded of how often people fall for empty rhetoric when the situation cries out for something more substantive, more concrete.
BD,
I live in Grand Rapids, MI which was just listed as number 10 in the Top Ten 10 dying cities in the country by Newsweek Magazine. This ranking was based on loss of population, specifically young people forced to go elsewhere to look for jobs. Flint and Detroit ranked further up in the list.
The mayor here made an angry speech refuting that the city was dying, without once addressing the fact that people are leaving because the New World Order insists that as many jobs as possible be exported overseas. This is the result of a bipartisan effort over the past decades to allow corporations to maximize profits by outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets out of the country. We are the ONLY country on earth to allow large businesses to actively and agressively outsource like this.
Obama, while calling for "competition", etc. in the SOTU speech, also plugged his new NAFTA agreement with South Korea that will offshore another estimated 150,000 jobs. It seems the competition we are looking at is a continued race to the bottom.
@Ernesto: "This is the result of a bipartisan effort over the past decades to allow corporations to maximize profits by outsourcing jobs to cheap labor markets out of the country."
Sad but true.
The multinational character of these corporations will still assure the rich a steady income, whether our economy declines appreciably or not.
It's the reason why companies like Caterpillar will continue to meet with little opposition from its shareholders--money is money whether it originates here in America or in China.
Post a Comment