To Do or Not to Do? Questioning the Axiology of Government

Newsweek has proclaimed on a recent cover, “We are all Socialists now!” but according to a recent USA today poll (on the cover of the April 15th edition), many Americans are not feeling the same sentiment. 44% of people polled disapprove of, what they view, as the Obama Administration’s massive expansion of the federal government. 39% approve of expanding the federal government to help with the current economic crisis but once the crisis is over, they favor reducing government. I guess this is the pragmatic view. Only 13% favored continually expanding the government through the crisis and beyond. 4% of people seemed conflicted and confused about which is the best route.

This has got to be disheartening for liberals who, in general, believe in a larger role of government in the public’s life. I have always thought that in the American DNA, there is a strain of rugged individualism. This is what may separate our culture from the societies of many of countries in the world. The director and actor Clint Eastwood once stated that he is a republican because he wants the government to “leave him the hell alone.” (My paraphrase)

Further frustration for liberals may come in the fact of the last election. Yes, they won the election based on a well-run and brilliantly orchestrated campaign by Barack Obama. They also won the senate races in 2006. However, looking at the numbers from the last presidential election, one can entertain some interesting facts. Most people, even some conservatives, view George W. Bush’s presidency as a failure. The republican name brand was severely damaged by Bush administration officials through numerous scandals, a controversial war in Iraq and the economic meltdown. As the election results rolled in on that big night in November 2008, we would discover that 58 million Americans still voted for the republican candidate, John McCain, compared to 66 million that voted for President Obama. A republican received approximately 47% of the popular vote when many people in the country viewed his party as the reason for why we were in an atrocious mess. Those are staggering numbers. Could it be that many people automatically vote against democratic or liberal candidates largely because of their views of a larger government being involved in people’s lives?

Conservatives believe that rugged individualism is written into the Declaration of Independence. The phrase, “each person is endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” has conservatives arguing that the individual is guaranteed freedom and liberty from a massive bureaucracy ruling over them.

To preach these values is easy, but to suggest how they play out in everyday life is more complicated. It is easy for right wing radio show hosts to go on the air and pound their desk for the cause of limited government. The ideal of limited government (one that I support in general) is a lot harder to define. How far should the reach of government go? What issues should the government be involved in?

Most conservatives I know would favor the government providing a national military. They would also favor a government that provides police officers and firefighters to assist our society when needed. Roads and infrastructure are also viewed as the responsibility of government. The issues of social security, public education, Medicare, and others become more hotly debated. According to the ideology of limited government, where exactly is this governance supposed to stop?

Like I said, I lean toward the perspective of a limited government but recognize the reality that it is good for the government to be involved in some ways in the life of our society.What should the government be involved in regard to our civil affairs and what should the government stay out of?

A final note: I’m glad we have a multiplicity of political perspectives in our country. We need liberals and conservatives to have these debates. I wish that we could intellectually have rational discussions but in my surfing of cable news channels, it seems that a lot of what we do involves calling each other names. I saw several interviews with attendees of the tea party calling President Obama a “fascist”, “dictator” (that word is the same treatment the left gave President Bush by the way), “socialist”. It is irrelevant to call somebody a bunch of names and label them some arbitrary title. We can certainly disagree with Obama’s ideas (I have problems with many of his political beliefs) but let us stick to debating/dialoguing about ideas instead of attacking someone’s character.