The Thumb of Government

by D. Ray Morton

So last night, in between peach pie and introducing my family to my future mother in law, I found myself whispering politics with my dad from across the dinner table while everyone else talked the wedding. I love our talks, or our “whispers” in this case, and I know I am always in for a conservative rundown of the current state of the Union when we do have them.

The meat of the conversation was about whether someone should either believe the government has the right to control so many aspects of our lives, my father obviously siding on the argument that forcing everyone to have heath care is nearly criminal and definitely unconstitutional, and my siding on the argument that while I agree that extreme government control is bad for the country, I think it’s better than letting the free market run amok.

During our conversation, I equated the country as a giant bolder stuck near the top of a mountain. On one side of the mountain is the valley of socialism, complete control over every choice you make by the government, and on the other side is the valley of complete freedom from the government, in which the free market reigns supreme without any restriction. My argument comes from the fact that I see our country as either rolling down one side or the other. It is impossible to place it right at the top, and no one even seems eager to do so. Instead, we seem to go through cycles of regulation and more regulation and more regulation, letting the boulder slide toward the socialist valley, and then we the majority switches parties and the boulder finds itself rolling the either way. the important visual here is that I concede that it’s a slippery slope either way, and once either party is in power, the boulder just keeps rolling. But my point to my father was that if we acknowledge that we cant get that boulder right on top of the mountain then it all comes down to which side of the mountain we want the boulder to roll. And I, as most liberals or progressives, side with the government regulatory side. I think it’s better for the country, and this is why.

First of all, conservatives really can’t argue that they are against government control as a general practice. After all, they don’t really mind government control when it comes to limiting abortion and teaching creationism in schools, do they? The point is, they are against CERTAIN KINDS of regulation, regulation that speaks against their credo. But the same can be true for democrats and independents and everyone else. Everyone is fine with government control if said control favors their value system. It’s all subjective and dependent on how far you think the Constitution and our morals give flavor to a certain subject. But for some reason conservatives cornered the market on “get the government out of our hair!”, as if a conservative majority would actually lower the government’s role to fixing potholes and mailing our care packages. It’s just not true. The government is always going to be there pushing an agenda forward, the only question is WHICH.

For that matter, a national mandate for healthcare was originally introduced as a republican idea back in the early 90’s, so the argument that this is a sure sign of government takeover is SILLY. It’s hypocrisy. It’s just the team that is not in power throwing stones at the team in power. It isn’t the only recent example, but it is one of the most glaring ones. The conversation SHOULD be about convincing me it isn’t all hypocrisy, but instead republicans just like to brush it aside, like it doesn’t matter, as if I’m not supposed to notice.

The conservative view is that the government shouldn’t be there with a handout for people, coddling them into expecting a national “teat” to suckle at. Food stamps, unemployment... none of these programs should be used to weaken us into lazily expecting the government to keep us going. We should pick ourselves up by own own bootstraps and make something of ourselves, like our ancestors did. The problem is it’s easy to go back to Ellis Island and consider that as a CLEAN slate for all American potential. Right now we live in a very complicated country. Unfortunately we aren’t all created equal. I don’t particularly believe in affirmative action, for instance, but I would also rather live in a country that didn’t discriminate enough to NEED affirmative action. My point is, it’s not a black and white issue. You can’t say the struggles your great grandfather overcame to be a success in this country are the same as now, and therefore require the exact same assistance, or lack thereof, from the government. Do I think people deserve to be coddled? No. Do I think that is what’s happening? Sure, sometimes. But my argument is that I think that is an opportunity for the government to step in EVEN MORE than it already does. Would conservatives have a problem if the government came in and set down harsher regulations for programs aimed at helping those in need? I think that if the President made a speech in which he convinced me that a certain government program wasn’t encouraging people to be their best, if it was doing nothing more than giving a “handout” to people, and that regulation needed to fix it, I’d be for it! I want this country to be build on “DO”, not on “GIMME”. I asked my father if he had a problem with all government intervention, or if he’d be in favor of the hypothetical I produced. What if the government not only laid down restrictions on big business and corrupt corporations, but also on public services that let people take advantage of the system?

Also, during my boulder on the mountain analogy, I compared the American people to a small child, and the government to a parent or guardian. It should be there to guide, support, and help us grow. It should inspire new ways of thinking and be there to point us in the right direction. But just like when we have safeguards when a parent abuses his child, we have safeguards for when the government abuses it’s people. They are called ELECTIONS. Nothing lasts forever, the paradigm shifts, the other side takes power, and the country keeps moving. I’ve never understood how people are so angry with Obama, as if the boulder has already come to a violent stop in the socialism valley. It hasn’t. Progressives don't WANT it to. I trust government in my life because I believe the system will shake off those in power if those in power aren’t good for the system. I believe in government regulation because I believe we as a country wont let it go to far. By contrast, I don’t believe in complete capitalistic freedom, because in my opinion I think we’ve seen we as a country WILL let it go to far. We are too greedy, too insatiable, too gluttonous to trust with the keys, aren’t we? But we as a country have it in us to have a RATIONAL discourse about the limits or freedoms of the Constitution, and once we make a decision on that, then the boulder gets reset somewhere higher up on the mountain. But bringing guns to Obama rallies, hate speech, false accusations about “death panels”... these don't further the national conversation on the subject. I’d love to have a conversation with a conservative about the Constitutionality of government mandated health insurance, but I’d need them to take the gun out of their hand and stop treating the topic with the adrenaline induced defense mechanisms akin to getting slapped in the face when you weren't expecting it.

My point keeps coming back to what the conversation SHOULD be. The conversation is what changes minds, puts people in office and changes things for the better. But the conversation can’t happen if one side doesn’t show up. When Bush was in power, the liberal outrage produced VERY GOOD ARGUMENTS AGAINST BUSH. Where are the conservatives making good arguments? I guess all I want to say is that I live in a country where I am required to have health insurance, and I still feel like I live in a FREE country. If the thumb of government oppression ever found it’s way to my back, I’d rise up against it, as I’m sure we all would, but to conservatives tea party loons who scream “HELL YEAH!! THAT’S WHAT WE ARE DOING! WE ARE RISING UP AGAINST THIS OPPRESSION!”, I just defer to my earlier argument that government mandated healthcare was a republican idea in the early 90’s, then I ask for any documentation they have of their outrage back then, and then when they can’t produce any, I ask them where their REAL argument is, besides floundering in partisan hypocrisy. 15 years ago it was YOUR idea, so your outrage now is bullshit.

I think that if 15 years ago we had a democratic President who took us to war under false pretenses, then yes, I’d have trouble with a liberal outrage now over the Bush administration doing the same thing, and I wouldn’t blame anyone for pointing the hypocrisy out to me. But that’s not the kind of national conversation our country wants to have, and that’s the craziest thing in the world.