Michael Swickard
“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.” – First President George Washington
There is an old saying that humans were created to give mosquitoes something to eat. Likewise, some people think citizens are created to enable government to get bigger.
I would like to believe that the myriad of government rules put upon citizens each day are of the utmost necessity and not just our government training us to be compliant citizens.
A free society still must abide by rules to insure that each citizen is free to be free, but some rules seem to only enhance government’s reach into our lives. Many citizens find that revolting – and even considering revolting – isn’t allowed in our society, which revolted to become free but has passed laws against ever revolting again.
So there is more shouting than normal these days by citizens in response to the reach of government into our lives. While some people shout, there are many more of us who are concerned, but shouting is not our way. We are a new generation of the “silent majority.”
Then-President Richard Nixon coined the term “silent majority” to say that not everyone was a protester; in fact, most were not inclined to protest, but the media only covered those dynamic images. In the terms of today, not everyone is an activist.
Tyranny or anarchy?
While I have enormous respect for the people and movement I, like many others, have not joined the tea party, but I am in complete agreement with those who think the government is reaching too far into our lives.
Most of us have a means of self-defense but we do not flaunt it. Importantly, most of us are too busy making a living to be much of an activist, but it does not mean we do not care deeply for our country and the direction it is taking.
The media spends its time on whether the Democrats or Republicans should run our country. They speak of the political left or the right. Those labels are meaningless political-speak. It is wrong to say, “Communists are on the left and fascists are on the right.”
W. Cleon Skousen’s great book, “The Five Thousand Year Leap,” states that both communists and fascists want more government control over the lives of the people; therefore, they are both moving toward the side of tyranny, which is complete government control of people. The other end of the continuum is anarchy, in which there is no government control and each citizen must look out for himself or herself individually.
Neither absolute tyranny nor anarchy is desirable.
Each election in our country is not about which political party will prosper; rather, it is about this fundamental question: Do you want to move toward tyranny or anarchy? It does not ask if you want complete tyranny or anarchy, only if you want to move that direction. Each candidate espouses values that move toward more or less government control of our lives.
Hardly a mandate
Our country falls in three general groups: About 17 percent want government bigger; about 33 percent do not want government bigger; and, about 50 percent are not politically minded at all. In fact, half of the people in our country of voting age care so little about politics that they are not even registered to vote, by choice.
After all, we are at liberty to not exercise our right to vote. That’s different than in countries with tyranny, such as in 2002 Iraq, where 100 percent of the people voted for Saddam Hussein.
Back to our country. In political terms, only half of our country does vote. In that group a third say they are conservative and a third say they are moderate. That leaves a third to be progressive. In short, progressives want government to be bigger and more reaching into our lives.
Our country is being pushed and prodded into uncharted progressive territory by less than 20 percent of the total population – hardly a mandate.
When we listen to candidates talk about why we should elect them, it is very hard for people running on the desire to make government bigger and more reaching to not say so in a number of ways including promising to take money from one citizen and give it to another for their vote. They are in both political parties.
Both parties are addicted
Years ago, an Albuquerque radio talk show host ran on the Republican side for New Mexico governor. At a forum I listened carefully to what he had to say, which he said nicely in a well-modulated voice and with funny asides. Then it was time for questions. I asked, “Everything you talk about, everything you have presented as your view of the future, makes the New Mexico government bigger. Is that your central aim – to make government bigger, but do so under the Republican label rather than the Democrat label?”
So I was not welcome any longer because I asked hard questions.
Glenn Beck recently noted that one of our political parties is addicted to spending and taxing while the other is addicted to spending. Both political parties seem addicted to making government bigger, except for the few who believe that government being bigger is not necessarily better.
If we look carefully, we can determine which candidates want to spend more and make government bigger and which will contain the size of government. We can then vote according to what we want for our future.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed