America Has No Irrefutably "Good" Old Days
"Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing! Sorry to say that... But his core values, his Democratic values are, at least for me, nowhere near what America needs. And for the record, Huckabee is just as bad, but on the opposite spectrum. America needs to go back to its roots. Smaller government. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. More freedom. You ain't gonna get that with Obama."
A virtually anonymous blogger posted this in response to my cross-post regarding Mike Huckabee on "Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel". This sparked the following visceral response in me. I didn't want to let good thought go to waste:
Though I appreciate your comment, I must challenge your assertion. To what point in American political history are you proposing we return?
America's roots of truly smaller government are of an aristocratic government, which was more plutocratic than what we have now.
From what I've been able to gather over the years, proponents for so called "smaller" government are seeking less regulation, but we must ask ourselves who has this less regulation historically benefited? Further, what have we set in place since then to ensure things would not just revert?
In addition, I've never heard a "smaller" government advocate make the case for actually spending less money, only the case for spending less money on fellow citizens unlike herself. I've never heard a "smaller" government proponent advocate against the money spent on the things that have accrued to the benefit of himself and the small, but affluent and influential, constituency he represents. I've never seen a "smaller" gov't advocate support the return of land taken from native Americans in westward expansion; or the restitution of wealth generated by but denied former slaves and their descendants; or the return of oil revenue and commodity stolen from middle east nations; or a trade policy that does not devalue the wealth of the global south, requiring that western corporations have the right to buy up all a nation's natural resources if that nation wants the right to play on the global stage, but rendering the nation too asset weak to do so. All of these are historic acts of a "large" (in terms of power) and over-reaching American gov't and have cost far more than the aggregate of the social programming ever done in this country. However, advocates for "smaller" gov't don't traditionally argue for the redress or cessation of these things, only for exemption from the give-end of the give-and-receive social contract that has made their historic privilege possible.
I should also mention that, by comparison, America, though still sorely lacking, has never been more "free" for a wider cross-section of people than it is right now. Nevertheless, not one treaty with a native American nation has ever been honored by the US. Even now, freedom-loving, peace-keeping Muslims have to endure Americans associating their religion with that of global terrorists. Just 40 years ago and beyond Blacks couldn't vote and were widely subjected to domestic terrorism. Additionally, 40 years ago there were no legal protections against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or physical disability. Just over 60 years ago, America had anyone who looked Japanese herded into Midwestern internment camps indefinitely. White women couldn't vote up to a few decades prior to that. And though she could stomach 100+ years of bringing people of color to America involuntarily, in 1882 America passed her first anti-immigration law against persons of Chinese descent, thus canonizing America's historic practice of overwhelmingly and disproportionately favoring European immigration, while closely regulating immigration from nations of color (a practice that has never been redressed and won't be by only sealing the boarders). I won't elaborate on the sad fact that Christendom has never taken a strong stand against any of these injustices.
Although I can appreciate many privileged Americans' nostalgia, I can't in good conscience share it--nor do I believe should anyone else.
Though I appreciate your comment, I must challenge your assertion. To what point in American political history are you proposing we return?
America's roots of truly smaller government are of an aristocratic government, which was more plutocratic than what we have now.
From what I've been able to gather over the years, proponents for so called "smaller" government are seeking less regulation, but we must ask ourselves who has this less regulation historically benefited? Further, what have we set in place since then to ensure things would not just revert?
In addition, I've never heard a "smaller" government advocate make the case for actually spending less money, only the case for spending less money on fellow citizens unlike herself. I've never heard a "smaller" government proponent advocate against the money spent on the things that have accrued to the benefit of himself and the small, but affluent and influential, constituency he represents. I've never seen a "smaller" gov't advocate support the return of land taken from native Americans in westward expansion; or the restitution of wealth generated by but denied former slaves and their descendants; or the return of oil revenue and commodity stolen from middle east nations; or a trade policy that does not devalue the wealth of the global south, requiring that western corporations have the right to buy up all a nation's natural resources if that nation wants the right to play on the global stage, but rendering the nation too asset weak to do so. All of these are historic acts of a "large" (in terms of power) and over-reaching American gov't and have cost far more than the aggregate of the social programming ever done in this country. However, advocates for "smaller" gov't don't traditionally argue for the redress or cessation of these things, only for exemption from the give-end of the give-and-receive social contract that has made their historic privilege possible.
I should also mention that, by comparison, America, though still sorely lacking, has never been more "free" for a wider cross-section of people than it is right now. Nevertheless, not one treaty with a native American nation has ever been honored by the US. Even now, freedom-loving, peace-keeping Muslims have to endure Americans associating their religion with that of global terrorists. Just 40 years ago and beyond Blacks couldn't vote and were widely subjected to domestic terrorism. Additionally, 40 years ago there were no legal protections against discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or physical disability. Just over 60 years ago, America had anyone who looked Japanese herded into Midwestern internment camps indefinitely. White women couldn't vote up to a few decades prior to that. And though she could stomach 100+ years of bringing people of color to America involuntarily, in 1882 America passed her first anti-immigration law against persons of Chinese descent, thus canonizing America's historic practice of overwhelmingly and disproportionately favoring European immigration, while closely regulating immigration from nations of color (a practice that has never been redressed and won't be by only sealing the boarders). I won't elaborate on the sad fact that Christendom has never taken a strong stand against any of these injustices.
Although I can appreciate many privileged Americans' nostalgia, I can't in good conscience share it--nor do I believe should anyone else.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home