College of Political Knowledge
Note: This post was to be posted yesterday, 08Feb12, and I chose the wrong draft….NEVER post before caffeine!
During the campaigns on the GOP side we keep hearing about “smaller government” and so far I have NOT heard a good definition of what they mean….other than less spending and tax cuts for the wealthy…..is that all there is to the smaller government concept? Maybe they are still grasping at the disproved “trickle down” concept.
To explain maybe we should start with the “social contract”…….answers.com
Simply, it is an agreement or covenant by which men are said to have abandoned the “state of nature” to form the society in which they now live. The theory of such a contract, first formulated by the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. Locke made the social contract the basis of his advocacy of popular sovereignty, the idea that the monarch or government must reflect the will of the people. Like Locke, the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau, found the general will a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a basis of the state. Similar ideas were used as a justification for both the American and the French revolutions in the 18th cent. Thomas Jefferson held that the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract, and that “consent of the governed” was fundamental to any exercise of governmental power.
While some say that it is an antiquated theory for today’s political world. I disagree…..we pay taxes which is our cost for the protection of the state….from crime, enemies and the preservation of the idea of equality. The state protects us and in doing so we have certain obligations to that state….some of these obligations are voting, taxes…….
When conservs say they are for a smaller government, what do they mean? Libertarians think the only thing government should be involved in is the defense from the boogey man, but what the the Tea Party……..they think that a large government is unconstitutional….but few can elucidate why…….and then there is the GOP which basically is a small government party, but never seem to reduce the size of government when in power. Small government conservatives seem to be all talk with absolutely NO action once they are at the rudder of the ship of state.
So far it appears to be a slogan to win elections and that is as far as it goes…..and it seems that small government means benefits for the wealthy and the wealthy only…….all this means that a vast majority are the ones that the social contract is paid for and a very minor amount of people are allowed to participate on the benefits of the social contract…..and this brings a new economic dynamic……plutonomy!
If Government does not seek to create a viable society for all (or at least nearly all) of its citizens, it has no reason to exist and will fall. History tells us that this is inevitable.
Morning jolly…..I agree an I am amazed just how long the US has existed in this form……since the beginning it has always been equality of opportunity NOT equality of the person….in the last decades the viability has shrank and is at a point that action can gives us real change….but will the American people take advantage of the opportunity?
I honestly think that traditional conservatives met Jefferson’s premise that the best government is that which governs least. Inherent in this premise however is that there is room for government oversight.
Today’s conservatives have a John Bircher mentality and make no room for social programs to enable the general welfare. They also don’t seem to oppose the intrusion into government by corporations. The policies and practices supported by many within conservatism today that allow corporations the status of “personhood” are preached to form the bogus view that they defend “free markets” while avoiding the obvious impact of such practices where ultimately corporations, not the government are pulling all of the strings.
They may show their outrage about how they feel we are be taken over by “socialist” ideas but that may in fact be nothing more than a canard to conceal their support of what really is evolving within our political system – crony capitalism.
Larry, no one of the Right wants any oversight….they want a free hand to screw as many as possible…….I have a piece in the Daily Agitator about Bernanke being a socialist….it is a good piece…..the people have a social contract but the wealthy do not have the same….and this where the whole system goes to hell……