When They Say Government They Mean YOU
Dave Johnson"Dave Johnson is a fantastic grandfather of the blogosphere."
Posted: July 22, 2009 12:36 PM
When They Say Government They Mean You
I'd like to talk about government. The conservative/corporate propaganda machine has turned "government" into a bad word. Conservatives portray our government as some kind of enemy of the public. We have all heard the scare stories about the harm done by meddlesome regulations from intrusive big government programs run by government bureaucrats.
Let's step back from reacting to the word as we hear it today and think about what the word really means.
In America government is us. It is, by definition, "We, The People." Our Constitution is the defining document of our government and it couldn't be clearer, declaring that We, the People formed this country "to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"... In other words, watch out for and take care of each other; "We, the People" have banded together to watch out for each other, take care of each other and build institutions to protect and empower each other.
With this in mind let's try an experiment. Try substituting some variation of the words, "We, the People," "us" or "the people making decisions for ourselves" every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people, working together to take care of and empower each other.
My favorite use of this experiment is to apply it to Reagan's keynote statement, "Government is the problem, not the solution." Reagan is making a profoundly anti-democratic statement here. He is saying that "The people making our decisions for ourselves and watching out for each other is the problem."
With statements like these, Reagan and the conservatives are advocating a different system of government than democracy. They are saying that we should hand those decisions and responsibilities over to the "private sector" -- the corporations -- and let others decide how things are going to be done and how our money and common resources will be used.
Another example is when conservatives repeat, "Don't let the government tell us what to do." That becomes, "Don't let us tell us what to do," or a little more broadly, "Don't let us decide the rules that we will live by." If we aren't the deciders, then who is? What about the conservative pejorative, "big government?" They are complaining about "big We, the People."
They want "limited government." So they have a beef with us having more power over ourselves! Of course, if we don't have this power, who do you think will?
Conservatives complain about government as a meddlesome, intrusive problem. But just who is government a problem for? If you are a top executive in a large chemical corporation and your bonus depends on lowering the cost of discarding toxic wastes, government stands between you and the river into which you want to dump the wastes. It costs the company less to dump the waste into the river, you will get your bonus, but We, the People don't want that stuff in our water. So for you, government is the problem. And that is a good thing. But our government is us. Our government protects us.
How about the refrain that people shouldn't rely on government, but instead should rely on themselves? That sounds good, somehow. But try it with "each other" and a small adjustment to "themselves," and what they are saying becomes, "People shouldn't rely on each other they should be on their own."
This is a variation on their "personal responsibility" mantra. They want us alone and defenseless. (This is also why they hate unions.) Is alone and defenseless really such a good way to live, especially in a world dominated by big corporations always trying to trick us and get our money?
Wouldn't it be better if we were working to protect each other from the big corporations?
Spending: When conservatives complain about government spending they mean empowering and taking care of each other. They don't like us doing that. We as a species learned from the beginning to band together, take care of each other. And now they want us separated and on our own.
Government taxing and spending is what empowers us. In the 1950s President Eisenhower proposed building the interstate highway system. That was an example of government spending, and as I wrote the other day, the top tax rate was over 90 percent on income above a certain amount. So after executives and owners of big companies made several hundred thousand dollars additional income was taxed at a very high rate. They could still become very, very wealthy, but more slowly. This taxation meant that the major beneficiaries of our government helped us pay for our government.
It paid off. The interstate highway system triggered a surge of economic growth, new industries, new products -- and even greater income for the very people who were taxed to help pay for it.
We also spend money protecting each other. Let's talk about the distortions in military spending another time. What about our spending to regulate corporations and enforce those regulations? Or spending on education or health care or parks? Conservatives just hate that. They have convinced much of the public that government spending - the people taking care of each other - is bad. And the way to disempower us is to cut taxes, the ability to gather the resources we need to fight the battles we fight with the rich and powerful.
Try these experiments,
Substitute "us" and "We, The People" when you hear conservatives complain about government.
Substitute "the resources we need to empower each other and fight the powerful" when you see the word "taxing" and
Substitute "taking care of each other" when you see the word "spending." This can be very powerful and empowering. It helps us see what kind of world the conservatives are really advocating.
================================================================
This post originally appeared at Open Left.
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
Posted: July 22, 2009 12:36 PM
When They Say Government They Mean You
I'd like to talk about government. The conservative/corporate propaganda machine has turned "government" into a bad word. Conservatives portray our government as some kind of enemy of the public. We have all heard the scare stories about the harm done by meddlesome regulations from intrusive big government programs run by government bureaucrats.
Let's step back from reacting to the word as we hear it today and think about what the word really means.
In America government is us. It is, by definition, "We, The People." Our Constitution is the defining document of our government and it couldn't be clearer, declaring that We, the People formed this country "to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"... In other words, watch out for and take care of each other; "We, the People" have banded together to watch out for each other, take care of each other and build institutions to protect and empower each other.
With this in mind let's try an experiment. Try substituting some variation of the words, "We, the People," "us" or "the people making decisions for ourselves" every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people, working together to take care of and empower each other.
My favorite use of this experiment is to apply it to Reagan's keynote statement, "Government is the problem, not the solution." Reagan is making a profoundly anti-democratic statement here. He is saying that "The people making our decisions for ourselves and watching out for each other is the problem."
With statements like these, Reagan and the conservatives are advocating a different system of government than democracy. They are saying that we should hand those decisions and responsibilities over to the "private sector" -- the corporations -- and let others decide how things are going to be done and how our money and common resources will be used.
Another example is when conservatives repeat, "Don't let the government tell us what to do." That becomes, "Don't let us tell us what to do," or a little more broadly, "Don't let us decide the rules that we will live by." If we aren't the deciders, then who is? What about the conservative pejorative, "big government?" They are complaining about "big We, the People."
They want "limited government." So they have a beef with us having more power over ourselves! Of course, if we don't have this power, who do you think will?
Conservatives complain about government as a meddlesome, intrusive problem. But just who is government a problem for? If you are a top executive in a large chemical corporation and your bonus depends on lowering the cost of discarding toxic wastes, government stands between you and the river into which you want to dump the wastes. It costs the company less to dump the waste into the river, you will get your bonus, but We, the People don't want that stuff in our water. So for you, government is the problem. And that is a good thing. But our government is us. Our government protects us.
How about the refrain that people shouldn't rely on government, but instead should rely on themselves? That sounds good, somehow. But try it with "each other" and a small adjustment to "themselves," and what they are saying becomes, "People shouldn't rely on each other they should be on their own."
This is a variation on their "personal responsibility" mantra. They want us alone and defenseless. (This is also why they hate unions.) Is alone and defenseless really such a good way to live, especially in a world dominated by big corporations always trying to trick us and get our money?
Wouldn't it be better if we were working to protect each other from the big corporations?
Spending: When conservatives complain about government spending they mean empowering and taking care of each other. They don't like us doing that. We as a species learned from the beginning to band together, take care of each other. And now they want us separated and on our own.
Government taxing and spending is what empowers us. In the 1950s President Eisenhower proposed building the interstate highway system. That was an example of government spending, and as I wrote the other day, the top tax rate was over 90 percent on income above a certain amount. So after executives and owners of big companies made several hundred thousand dollars additional income was taxed at a very high rate. They could still become very, very wealthy, but more slowly. This taxation meant that the major beneficiaries of our government helped us pay for our government.
It paid off. The interstate highway system triggered a surge of economic growth, new industries, new products -- and even greater income for the very people who were taxed to help pay for it.
We also spend money protecting each other. Let's talk about the distortions in military spending another time. What about our spending to regulate corporations and enforce those regulations? Or spending on education or health care or parks? Conservatives just hate that. They have convinced much of the public that government spending - the people taking care of each other - is bad. And the way to disempower us is to cut taxes, the ability to gather the resources we need to fight the battles we fight with the rich and powerful.
Try these experiments,
Substitute "us" and "We, The People" when you hear conservatives complain about government.
Substitute "the resources we need to empower each other and fight the powerful" when you see the word "taxing" and
Substitute "taking care of each other" when you see the word "spending." This can be very powerful and empowering. It helps us see what kind of world the conservatives are really advocating.
================================================================
This post originally appeared at Open Left.
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
Comment
-
Comment by Luane Todd on July 23, 2009 at 9:38pm -
In America GOVERNEMENT is US.
It is, by definition, "We, The People."
Our Constitution is the defining document of our government and it couldn't be clearer, declaring that
We, the People formed this country "to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves"...
In other words, watch out for and take care of each other;
"We, the People" have banded together to watch out for each other, take care of each other and build institutions to protect and empower each other.
(If you don't think this is a real need and that the loner is the winner, remember that we humans are social creatures or we wouldn't do churches and rock bands and we would never go back to our parents or family for anything because we didn't 'need' them for anything. The loner or straggler is the one that gets picked off first and our less 'civilized' forefathers knew that. I suppose they thought it was such commonsense that it did not need to be spelled out.)
For those who want to be literal in their translation of the Constitution I really don't see how quoting the Preamble is somehow using language to reinforce any 'position'. Nor do I see how this can be a liberal or conservative 'take' on the language of the document.
=====
I submit that the prize is not getting off foreign oil per se...and I think the fixation with this is hurting what we really need to do.
The prize is taking control of the inputs which affect our ability to produce whatever we need in a manner that makes possible a reasonable return for what we chose to do. The end result will be a reduction our need for imports if we do our homework.
When we produce one of the major inputs...energy...on site and do not have to try to calculate what that input will cost us, because we know since we produce it, we put ourselves in a more secure bargaining position in the marketplace.
The Pickens Plan is one possibility but it is not necessarily the only or even the most logical approach for all situations or locations. It still focuses on only two solutions and both of them are technically imports for the majority of Americans...they have to be brought long distances to do the work energy does. I for one want the option to chose the most realistic solution (or combination of solutions) to the local or regional needs and have very little interest in being locked into another 'one size fits all' solution. That is part of what is causing problems now. Only gasoline for cars, only coal or nuclear for electricity, only natural gas as the back up for electricity or the fuel for cars....only, only, only.
Seldom a realistic approach to first reducing the needs, then deciding the best ways from many possibilities for any given place. Monopolies are bad, no matter what product or need you are talking about. They do away with choice. They put the customer at the mercy of the supplier and that is not a comfortable position, in my opinion.
The most logical thing I can imagine is to remove the restrictions on the development of substitutes for corporate controlled energy. Open the field to all solutions, not just the politically correct or purchased solutions. There are many ways to do this but I will save my thoughts on these ways till another day.
-
Comment by Clynton on July 23, 2009 at 7:03pm -
Thanks for the post, Luane.
I happen to like it, because it reminds me that we humans are very adept at using language to reinforce our position. A conservative writing this post would have used similar language, point for point and come to completely opposite conclusions each time. We the People are funny like that. Well, I disagree with everything Dave wrote - and I agree with everything Dave wrote - and I agree with a portion of it and disagree with a portion. Like Bill Clynton said, "I feel your pain, no matter what side you're on."
So, now that everything is clear, I'm with John Welsley. Let's come together - left/right/center green/constitution/progressive liberal/conservative independent/democrat/republic black/white/pink/brown/blue/yellow/whatever We The People are - and fight to get off foreign oil.
-
Comment by John Wesley Nobles on July 23, 2009 at 12:50pm - Let's keep the conservative and liberal positions out of it for the time being and get the Nat Gas Act of 2009 passed into law. Every once of our energy must be focused on the prize. We all have our views but I hope here we all agree that we must get off foreign oil. Channel our energy into calling and writing our elected representatives telling them we want an energy program now and need them to support Pickens Plan!
Featured Discussion
Twitter Feed
© 2009 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
You need to be a member of PickensPlan to add comments!
Join this Ning Network