By Chris Kliesmet
Introduction
The role of government is well-described in our country’s founding documents. The Declaration of Independence sets the tone with passages such as:
“… governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
and
“… organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The U.S. Constitution goes on to explain the role of government beginning with such epic and descriptive words as are found in its preamble:
“… to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
The remaining articles and amendments establish a democratic republic replete with numerous checks and balances to prevent “tyranny by the leadership” and basic “inalienable” rights that cannot be usurped by the “tyranny of the majority.”
Only the most extreme among us would deny the value of the basic tenets of these founding documents. Therefore, the debate over the role of government can be reduced to an argument over not so much “what” but “how much.” Opinions are spread across the spectrum, ranging from laissez-faire capitalists calling for little or no government, to the specter of “big brother” socialists seeking the government’s helping hand in virtually everything.
Some would further simplify the struggle to one of conservatism versus liberalism, but even here an unexplainable dichotomy exists. A conservative president has expanded government more than any president in U.S. History. Liberals fight to extend government protection for American jobs, yet eagerly shop at Wal-Mart.
Historical Perspective
How things got this way is no mystery to macro-economists and political scientists. After World War II, much of the industrialized world saw its manufacturing assets, workers, and financial and natural resources devastated. The so-called “third world” countries were still undeveloped. America enjoyed a virtual monopoly status and a standard of living to match. Simply put, Americans could afford to shed their frugal heritage and focus on the “American Dream.” We disengaged completely, either not bothering to vote or not analyzing the consequences of our choices, and we allowed government to grow faster than we could feed it. Unfortunately, much of America’s advantage eroded by the mid-nineties as the world rebuilt, educated itself, and integrated technological efficiencies.
Suddenly, America began to feel the tightening effects of competition. Citizens could no longer send increasing sums to the government in the face of diminishing disposable income. The role of government once again became an issue of increasing concern. Redefining that role in light of the grim realization of new found world competition is a difficult task that forces us to reexamine several of the same issues our founding fathers found so vexing.
Equal Opportunity versus Equal Outcome
Most agree that providing equal opportunity, a “level playing field,” is a key role of government in a free society, especially one with a capitalist economy. It is essential that all members of such a society have the same basic opportunity to participate. This concept is the basis for providing access to a free education, employment opportunity, as well as many other government programs and sanctions. At some point, however, there is evidence that the government overplays this role and begins to use its authority in an attempt to create equal outcomes regardless of the willingness of its citizens to participate and take advantage of basic opportunities. We see this evidenced in employment programs that degenerate into quota systems, rather than emphasizing the need to motivate and train a broad spectrum of citizens and strictly enforce equal opportunity laws.
Rights and Responsibilities
Government has traditionally played the lead role in safeguarding the rights of its citizens. However, rights under any system are immutably coupled with corresponding responsibilities. In the past, acceptance of these responsibilities was implicitly expected and enforced by societal pressure. This obviated the need for the government to play any role in maintaining a balance between rights and responsibilities. Now, there are moves afoot to grant all manner of rights to citizens and even non-citizens with no expectation of the acceptance of their attendant responsibilities. A classic example is the debate over voting rights. Clearly, it is the right of all citizens in a democratic society to cast a vote. But, what are the responsibilities of citizens in exercising this franchise? In many jurisdictions the debate is how to identify qualified electors and focuses on simple voter ID. Is even this enough? Does not government also play a legitimate in role in mandating the exercise of responsibility when exercising rights? Some countries require all citizens to serve a year or more in the military. Would it be prudent to require all high school students to pass a course in civics? Is it acceptable to vote for president if you cannot even name the candidate’s running mate? Here is one more provocative question. Are we truly free if we do not know what or who we are voting for and simply follow the lead of zealots or clever advertising?
Regulation: Prohibition versus “Making Regular”
Another indisputable role of government is to promulgate regulations. Imagine the difficulty in transacting simple business matters without such regulations as the Uniform Commercial Code or Interstate Commerce Act. Unfortunately, government regulation has become synonymous with another word: “prohibit.”
In 1755, Samuel Johnson published what is considered the first complete dictionary of the American language, one that captured the essence of the meaning of words in that era. He defines “regulation” as “To adjust by rule or method. . . . To direct.” Even today’s Webster’s dictionary uses similar wording with no mention of concepts that suggest prohibition. To be more direct, the Constitution’s frequent use of the word “regulate” means “to make regular,” not to prohibit. Yet, many governmental bodies seek to use the power to regulate as the power to prohibit and usurp basic freedoms.
A classic example is how local governments prohibit the use of tobacco products by virtue of their power to regulate. Tobacco use is an unhealthy habit. It is, however, a legal product to own and use. Perhaps it should be made illegal, but politicians are unwilling to risk the backlash of classifying it as such. Instead, they pass popular, yet nonetheless onerous, “regulations” that prohibit its use on all “public premises” blurring the distinction between “publicly owned property,” where the majority can rightly overrule the minority, and “private property open to the public” that is constitutionally under the control of the owner.
At this point the concept of “informed consent” must be introduced. Few would argue the need for government to regulate commerce in instances where citizens cannot exercise informed consent. One cannot reasonably detect food poisoning. Therefore, it is reasonable that governments regulate sanitary conditions to reduce the potential for food poisoning. Although equally unhealthy, the presence of smoke can easily be detected by patrons. In this case, constitutionally protected minority rights trump majority rule regardless of what may be “good” for all involved.
Conclusions
Despite our protestations, it is my belief that Americans privately agree on 80% of issues but let ego and competitive pride turn the focus to the 20% we disagree on. Politicians have seized on this psychological curiosity to divide the populace into camps that exist for no reason than to preserve political positions of power. The result is an ever-expanding government that produces few truly happy customers. The only remaining question is what “we the people” are willing to do about it. After all, regardless of its role, it is our government.
Chris Kliesmet is Director of Communications, Citizens for Responsible Government.
