As you know, one of the banes of my existence is the far-too-large group of people in our country who HATE government, and do nothing but bad-mouth it.
I take it personally, as an American. It offends my patriotism, because the great glory of this country is our system of government. It’s not free enterprise, as wonderful as that is and much as that goes hand-in-hand with, and is encouraged and supported by, our system. It’s not the land, as beautiful and varied and bountiful as that is. It’s not the people qua any identifiable group of people, in any kind of racial or cultural or nationalistic sense (you can’t identify an American with a DNA test, the way you can a person of Japanese heritage, for instance), because our people come from every other country on Earth — which really is the one greatest thing about the American people — we are universal, and represent the aspirations of all peoples, the world over.
No, it’s the system that we founded here, which made everything work together — the free economy, the sprawling land, the aspiring people from everywhere, seeking something better. It’s self-government, on the grand scale. It’s representative democracy; it’s that we are the first and still foremost example of liberal democracy on the planet. It’s the Constitution, federalism, checks and balances, separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, free elections.
It’s one thing for a subject of an absolute, medieval monarch to hate government, as a thing that takes from him and oppresses him, a thing into which he has no input, and over which he exercises no control. Or a citizen in a totalitarian dictatorship.
But to “hate government” in this country is to hate ourselves and the wonderful thing we have wrought.
Yeah, I know — the government haters will say that it’s just the particular size of the government at a given moment (which is always now) that they hate, or the policies under the present officeholders, and that they love, they adore, their country.
Yeah, well… occasionally their habits of thought betray those protestations.
I saw it today on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal. It went with a run-of-the-mill, boilerplate piece of the sort that you read all of the time in the Journal. It was headlined, “What Obama Didn’t Learn From the 1990s,” and the subhed elaborated, “The economic growth of the 1950s, the ’60s and the Clinton years had many causes. But one of them wasn’t high marginal tax rates.”
Not a thing wrong with that piece. I disagreed with some of it, but thought it made some good points. In any case, that’s what we’re supposed to do as Americans — argue energetically for this policy and against that one. That’s one of the rights, even obligations, guaranteed us under the American system. (At this point the libertarian ideologues will jump in and say these rights are endowed by our creator and not the gift of a government, and they’d be right, rhetorically speaking. But good luck exercising those rights, here or in most of the rest of the world where such rights are enjoyed, if not for the system our Founders had the wisdom to set up.)
The problem was with the artwork that went with the piece.
It’s one of those moments when you wonder whether any of the editors involved in producing that piece and putting it on the page, and proofing it, and putting it on the website, stopped at any point to think to themselves, Wait a minute: We’re portraying Uncle Sam as a BAD guy. A fat, evil bully, smirking with malice as he takes away the money of a good American (here portrayed as a white guy in a business suit — no doubt one of the “successful investors and risk-takers” mentioned in the column). Did that not occur to anyone, and did he or she not get a sinking feeling? (Sort of the way the guy portraying a Nazi in this comedy skit suddenly realized he had a skull on his cap, and wondered, “Are we the baddies?”)
Yeah, I know — the illustrator was thinking of Uncle Sam as representing the “government,” which in the ideology that predominates on that editorial board is an entity that does nothing but take, and get in the way.
But while Uncle Sam is defined by Wikipedia as “the American government,” the part that speaks to me most is American. And he’s more that just the government. The name comes from U.S., which is the United States. Uncle Sam is US, our country. He’s always been understood that way. Those recruiting posters wouldn’t have been very powerful if they had simply been understood as some mean ol’ government agency wants you — he stood then, and stands now, for our country.
Related Posts
I don’t hate government. I hate the way our government is implemented. There’s a difference.
Our government is grossly inefficient. That’s my bottom line measurement.
Our country was founded on hating a different form of government.
There was a time, according to Wikipedia, when the argument that Uncle Sam was the government as opposed to the country was defensible: “As early as 1835 Brother Jonathan made a reference to Uncle Sam implying that they symbolized different things: Brother Jonathan was the country itself while Uncle Sam was the government and its power.”
But then, the very next sentence says: “By the 1850s the name Brother Jonathan and Uncle Sam were being used nearly interchangeably to the point that images of what had been called ‘Brother Jonathan’ were now being called Uncle Sam.”
And if you look at drawings of Brother Jonathan, you see where our image of Uncle Sam came from.
Doug, yes and no on your last point. Plenty of Americans who took up arms in 1775 simply wanted the rights they believed they were entitled to as British subjects. That of course morphed over time, but at no point could you say that all who embraced the cause of independence were fiercely republican.
In fact, as the unfortunate rise of political parties occurred, the split was to some extent between Anglophiles who valued our ties to the Mother Country, and Francophiles who embraced the French Revolution.
Of course, even among the Anglophiles there was by that time a great love of republicanism. But my point is the causes of our split from Britain are more complex than a matter of HATING the English form of government, except insofar as it related to the colonies…
Best laugh of the day. Unemployment was reported to have increased from 8.2% to 8.3% in the last month, to which the White House’s response was, “nah ah… it’s only 8.254%”.
Doug, how would you make govt efficient?
Our federal government is inefficient at most things it tries to do.
Specific example: Amtrak has lost $833 million on serving food and beverages alone. “It costs passengers $9.50 to buy a cheeseburger on Amtrak, but the cost to taxpayers is $16.15,” said [Rep. John Mica (R-FL)]. “Riders pay $2.00 for a Pepsi, but each of these sodas costs the U.S. Treasury $3.40.”
Will anything change? I wouldn’t bet on it.
I disagree. I love my fellow hardworking citizens, but I neither trust not love the massive, bloated, federal government. There’s a distinction.
There are times when you are sorely missed at The State.
I will say that the image of Uncle Sam in the above cartoon is certainly different than the one used in recruiting posters. Much more malevolent.
And I’m not sure what other figure could be used to represent the US government.
Two comments: I think of the American Revolution as being about the desire for self-determination. That’s the ring of freedom. At the same time our “government” is inherently inefficient in a commercial sense. It is not a business enterprise, it is us.
In both cases corruption is the enemy of the people. We are a coalition of the willing.
@J
Start with a eliminating a vast majority of the functions that it now performs – especially at the Federal level. There should be no federal Department of Education.
Another perfect example at the federal level is the TSA. The quality and efficiency of that group is abysmal. Yet they can do whatever they want and get away with it because they are “protecting us from terrorists”. Their policies are ridiculous, the staffing is excessive, and as someone who travels very frequently, my observation is that the vast majority of them couldn’t protect a Wal-Mart.
One only needs look at the tax codes at any level of government to understand just how stupid the system is. Fixing government would have to start with a complete overhaul of the tax system. Flat taxes, no deductions, no exemptions, no way to hide income, no social engineering thru tax code, no special favors to industries. It hasn’t worked. Pick a rate and apply it across the board for everyone and every company.
The government runs on lobbyist dollars funneled to career politicians. It’s not about doing what is right, it is about rewarding special interests.
If you want efficiency, try a dictatorship. Democracy is always inefficient by those standards and was not designed so.
I say to those that are moving to Canada, or United Kingdom, to escape America, I say “You are wimps! If you don’t like government, move to a place where government doesn’t exist. I suggest moving to Somalia.” One can make their own fortune in Somalia and also avoid taxation. Of course, don’t come back crying to us to rescue you.
Grover Norquist, Ron Paul, SC Governot Nikki Haley, and the other kooks and zealots should denounce their citizenship and move to Somalia!
Brad,
What we lament about is what our government has become. Nowadays, we have professional politicians who make their home in or near D.C. and who in one way or another, develop careers and earn their living via the government. They work as Senators or Congressmen, but often they do not actually live in the districts they represent. Nor do they always follow the majority rule or opinions of their home district. Instead, they work at compromising, often times fueled by the ever-present and always persuasive lobbyist. With some justification, we have become rather cynical in our outlook about ‘our people’ in Washington.
They have become self-serving. I love America and I often pause in wonder at our forefathers and how well they articulated the ideals we celebrate today. What would they be thinking nowadays?
I grew up in Aiken in the 60s. The Feds meant better schools and voting rights for all. I’d much rather be governed solely by the Feds!
Some who prefer centralized government (which our federal government under liberals wants to become) may not be taking their responsibility for local government as seriously as Brad, Doug and I.
The federal government suffers excesses, waste (Solyndra: if you don’t know yet what is new, you will learn before November), and incompetence (the GSA party) while forgetting that it serves at our will.
Unlike private enterprise which is kept on its toes by the threat of competition and the need for innovation, the Feds compete with no one in a backwater of low quality products that are much too expensive (even without patronage, graft and lobby influences).
If we don’t like a particular local government, only personal preferences stop any of us from voting with our feet.
At the federal level corruption and tyranny are easily confused.
I serve and support the United States (the union of 50 sovereign state governments). I detest moves to further aggrandize the Feds or fatten its bureaucracy.
Middle-class suburban supporters of the president take note. It isn’t just the pocketbooks of the “1 percent” he’s after; it’s yours. Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn-down-suburbs-stanley-kurtz?pg=1
Kathryn,
I grew up in Barnwell County during the late 50’s and early 60’s so I appreciate and agree with your perspective. One thing you did not mention though was how we all loved that Federal money being spent at the “bomb plant” which drove the local economies, in Aiken at least.
Well, if you want to make changes then vote. As a physician friend of mine said, “Voting is like driving. D is for going forward and R is for backing up.”
Unlike private enterprise which is kept on its toes by the threat of competition and the need for innovation
-Juan
That is probably the single most overused memes in all of politics. Private enterprise can and does abuse consumers. It’s called greed. The “threat” of competition is muted in many instance. Just look at the financial crises. The greedy bankers were able to parlay extremely risky lending practices into huge bonuses for a while. There was not real competition since everyone had an incentive to follow suit with those bad practices. In the end Uncle Sam bailed out many of the bad actors and even the CEOs of those that failed, Mr. Fuld for instance, came out pretty well in the end. So it really isn’t comforting in the least to rely exclusively on the magic of the market to convey an efficient environment for commerce. That can only go so far. In addition to Adam Smiths “invisible hand” we also need an involved government to make sure the welfare of the nations citizenry is maximized.
add “ing” to want
Brad, thanks for editing spelling
“It’s called greed.” -Bud
My response is best summed up thusly:
http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
Bud,
Do you drive an automobile? Do you ever use prescription drugs? Competition brings you choices. Litigation assures quality. I am familiar with both totalitarian (communist) regime where there were no choices and a socialist regime with limited choices.
In both, if you managed to get on the waiting list for a car, after many years you would have to buy a low-quality heap. Medicine was free, but again, waiting times were measured in weeks or months, not minutes or hours.
Be careful what you wish for. Some of your opinions project a youthfulness that betray an otherwise educated man.
Be careful what you wish for. Some of your opinions project a youthfulness that betray an otherwise educated man.
-Juan
Indeed at age 56 I am quite youthful.
Granted capitalism has it’s virtues. Many wonderful and useful products have come from American ingenuity and hard work. And to a certain extent competition is effective in constraining prices. But to suggest unfettered capitalism will always lead to the best result suggests that it’s Juan, not bud, who possesses the youthful naïveté.
So, Juan, you’re in favor of litigation? You are so sweet to help the lawyers keep their jobs!
Kudos to Brad for correcting my atrocious spelling of naïveté.
KM, what is revealing to me is the evident inability of individual lawyers (unelected ones to be sure) to disassociate ordinary attorneys from those in elected office, appointed government regulatory roles, and the principle lobbyists (law firms) who influence our representatives.
Apparently, some practicing lawyers are unable to divorce themselves from the network of the aforementioned power elites, with whose help many feed from the public purse.
I have never opposed the practice of common law, nor lawyers elected to public offices. I am 100% opposed to the disproportionate numbers of lawyers now in our Congress (and Supreme Court).
Not only are congressional lawyers (Repubs and Dems, Ind) unrepresentative of the 98% of the public who are not law graduates, there presence in D.C. exposes them to daily conflicts of the public’s interest.
More and more of the public is gradually joining my view and the scandals are not even public knowledge …yet.
Sounds like Juan would rather live in Bartertown.