<<People have to stop depending on the state to solve our problems, as it
is unable even when it is willing.>>
Hi all -
As someone who has studied both "liberal" and "conservative" ideas about
the role of government, I think there's an important component missing on
both sides. Both often treat the government as a thing. Current
conservatives often demonize it (often because it is seen as a barrier to
their corporations doing what they please) while current liberals try to
show its role, value, and potential benefit. I think both can go to
extremes and miss the others' point of view, and that we'll only get
resolution if we can shift the conversation from "government is good" vs.
"government is bad" (because it clearly can be either) but to "what is the
most appropriate role of government."
Conservatives rail against government but use the infrastructure it creates
(roads, public education, police force, corporate welfare, vets education,
etc.) both as individuals and corporations - and even defend military
spending - even putting out bills budgeting more than the Pentagon
requests! This at the same time as they bemoan every dollar "the
government" takes and demonize it with a broad brush. And they say they're
being practical in insisting everyone work, while ignoring the government
policy that keeps unemployment at 6%.
Still, underneath these huge blindnesses and inconsistencies, there is a
valuable point, which is that any taxpayer feels the bite of paying taxes,
and it is reasonable/important that our government spend our money
effeciently and with respect for the effort it takes to create it. Instead
of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, why not just ask what we want
government to achieve and if there are better/more efficient ways for it to
be accomplishing those goals?
On the other hand, liberals can go to the other extreme, calling for
remedies that take lots of money without really considering that as real
money from someone's pocket, or making sure to consider the realities of
incentive and other human and economic dynamics. Sometimes they attack the
symptom (someone homeless) and ignore trying to resolve the underlying
cause.
Still, underneath their sometimes overarching compassion and need for
practicality about financial matters, there is a valuable point, which is
that government can play an important role in creating a society and
country and world that we want to live in, that making money holy above all
other values, including compassion (ex. when someone has hard times) and
valuing differences, etc. is to create a world much meaner than humanity
really desires.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, acknowledging the range of opinions,
but seeking to explore the structure underneath. I think if we can see
these overall tides in the conversation, we can see that these two
viewpoints will keep fighting until they hear each other, because each
carries an important message and thus won't go away. To me, the place that
receives the gift of both sides, while letting go of the unncessary, is to
say:
"Let's stop demonizing and let's stop deifying government. Let's stop
pretending it's 'out there' somewhere. Government is _us_. We created
government as a structure for working through our shared community issues,
for ensuring that the community's interests had a place to be discussed,
valued, and included. Life is a balance between the needs of the
individual and the needs of the community. We will find happiness only
when we find a way to balance both well. So then let's have a
mutually-respectful conversation, as a community, about what role _we_
would like our government to play. Let's listen well to the concerns and
visions of everyone who approaches this conversation with earnestness (vs.
greed cloaked by false arguments) and find a way to create a future that we
_all_ can be excited about moving towards. For we are all children of g-d,
each has a special gift to give, no one is unnecessary, and we are together
on this precious planet trying to feel our way through to something that
brings true happiness. We're all in this together."
In this context, we wouldn't say "everyone on welfare is cheating" or "all
government is bad" or "questioning welfare is just heartless" but rather
"I'd like to be there for my neighbor in need, but I'd like to be sure that
they don't take advantage of that inappropriately and that it doesn't
undermine their self-confidence and self-sustainability". Then we can have
a conversation about the way to best do that.
In this context, we wouldn't say "the government can't do anything well" or
"the government can solve anything" but rather "how can we as a community
get together, using government as our tool/meeting place/mechanism, to
create our future?" While government has challenges (ex. no real market
mechanism), it has benefits (ex. being able to see past a money-only value
system; being one central place, like the post office), and I see no
inherent reason why it can't be a contribution/be successful, just as
humans are successful when they get together in other ways - just as long
as we set appropriate goals for it and work together to make them happen
(vs. just complain when our shared government gets it wrong from our
perspective, as if it were inherently a separate thing from us, for us to
stand in judgement of). (Note: We'd also note the strengths and limits of
business/corporations in their actions, neither deifying or demonizing
their inherent nature, but recognizing what they are/can be good at, and
what is not really in the way they're currently structured.)
In this context, we wouldn't turn to government as a father to magically
wave a magic wand and "make it all better", but we wouldn't also demand
that it get out of our way and make certain individual interests superior
to certain others' or to the community's. Rather, we'd see the government
as a place we can talk (and listen) together, share and create our visions,
get clear on the facts and possibilities, support each other as human
beings, and keep finding better and better ways for both our individual and
community needs to be met, in a way that is both compassionate and
intelligent/practical. In this way, we can have a conversation that moves
us forward, rather than an exhausting-for-both-sides verbal war that serves
only those who sell the munitions.
Hope you find these ideas useful -
Patricia Dines
(c) Patricia Dines, 1997. All rights reserved.