Nursemaid or knight?

What is the role of (American) government?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence

As I survey the political landscape and ponder the choices people make at the polls, I often wonder how we got to this point in America, why politicians feel so free to engage in corruption, and how, if even, we can get back to the vision of our founding fathers. It seems that Americans have two diametrically opposed views as to the purpose of government (especially the federal government). Either one believes the government is to serve as a nursemaid or it is to behave as a knight. I know it’s not a perfect analogy, but bear with me.

The latter, the view that the government should operate as a knight is a somewhat noble notion. Those who hold this view see a knight as a protector, someone who stands for justice, who defends the domain, who battles evil, and who upholds the virtues of the kingdom. The knight is duty- and honor-bound to serve the realm and to not meddle in the affairs of individuals. People with this perspective have an understanding of government that aligns with the tenets upon which this country was established. The purpose of government, according to the documents that instituted the United States, is to protect the people’s rights, to protect our borders, to help protect the individual States, to maintain interstate infrastructure, deliver mail, regulate trade with foreign nations and between states, and mete out justice (equal justice for all). Beyond these functions, there is little with which the Constitution tasks the federal government. The government is there to see that the union is well-maintained.

Those who hold the former position believe the government is obligated to care for the people as a nursemaid would children. This is the mindset that foments the “nanny state.” They believe that our elected representatives should be about the business of nurturing us, providing sustenance, protecting our health, ensuring the people have housing, and generally providing for the people. Such people are of the conviction that the government teat should be available for all to suckle, that nursing should be compulsory, and that the “milk” produced by the bureaucratic bosom should never run dry. They maintain that the elected elites know what is best for us, even better than we ourselves, thus they should wield influence over us unmatched even by our own autonomy. Autonomy, in their eyes, is anathema, despite their embrace of such autonomy in select situations. It is a rather dichotomous position in that bodily autonomy is embraced when promoting the termination of a life growing inside a mother, but that same bodily autonomy is rejected in light of illness and experimental medicine. Individual accomplishment is to be eschewed; all must kneel at the altar of the “common good.”

Those in the nursemaid camp are rather naive in their approach to all things government, appallingly ignorant of the totalitarian ends to which their politics lead, and completely oblivious to the ramifications of their expected economic effluence. The only way the government can wet-nurse the willing is by running roughshod over the rights of the recalcitrant. In order to fund any type of welfare, universal income, social safety net, or any other public program, the government must amass money. While some regimes find it favorable to simply fire up the printing presses, treasury notes cannot be issued willy-nilly without causing rampant inflation and completely devaluing the dollar. As money has to come from somewhere, those who are most productive also find themselves most punished. As Peter Venetoklis over at The Roots of Liberty says, they must (as they are so fond of doing) spend Other People’s Money (OPM) - those in authority must rob producers of their hard-earned wages. Picture a sow (as above) who must nurse her young. She goes to the trough to feed on that which is produced and provided by others. Some of that feed produces milk for her sucklings, and the rest continues to fatten the sow itself.

Then begins the question of doling out the dinero. Who gets what? On what basis is distribution determined? Is it a matter of attempting to make everyone “equal,” or, in modern terms, to achieve equity? For the pig and her piglets, it may be first-come first-served, or it may be a matter of the strongest little piggy pushes out the weaker of the brood. Likewise, some may receive from the government while others languish.

What happens when the farmer dies or is no longer able to provide slop for the sow? The hog may be too busy fending for herself to worry about her dependents. Even if she concerns herself with feeding her flock, they certainly will be malnourished while she strives to survive. This is the problem that has so often been cited with regard to socialism - you eventually run out of other people’s money. At that point, aside from those elites in the upper echelons of the party, all do arrive at an equitable situation - equitable in the sense that everyone is equally destitute, deprived of even a so-called “living wage,” scavenging for whatever sustenance may be found in the resulting squalor. Even before this end is attained, to maintain any semblance of an attempt to provide for the public welfare, the government must centralize power on an ever-increasing basis. Those who go against the grain must be pummeled into the program. Independent thought cannot be tolerated if the plan is to succeed (the only thing at which socialism has ever succeeded is bringing misery to the masses and wealth to the few). 

Unfortunately, those who endorse the nanny-state mentality rarely see past the here and now to understand the ultimate outcome of their ideology. It is usually not until the walls are crumbling around them that they come to the realization the people for whom they voted, and the policies they promoted, were disastrous from the start. At that point, as can be seen with many cities around the country now, people who can afford to do so flee the remnants of their once posh polis, destined for places that have not implemented such disastrous designs. Alas, those who take flight, once they find their new digs, fail to learn from their experience and usually vote for the same types of people and policies that necessitated them leaving their previous locality. This bring us to a critical point.

With many of the articles I write, I’m often asked, “how do we change things?” Some make the observation, “it seems no matter who we vote for, they become just as corrupt as the rest.” Both of these are rather astute. I’ve written before about how the political parties are self-preserving, and that they serve themselves and the machine rather than we the people. I’ve pointed out endlessly how they make merchandise of us, growing rich off the people while deriding others who amass wealth through legitimate means, characterizing them as the villains causing others to go without. At times, even to me, the cause seems hopeless. We cannot at present vote our way out of this. Even if we manage to install righteous representatives, the bureaucracy is too ingrained and debased. Short of abolishing the current government and instituting a new one, as intimated in the Declaration of Independence, it has been a struggle to see a way out of our predicament; however, I’ve come to realize that the reason overcoming this obstacle appears such a Herculean hurdle, as many have pointed out, is that we did not arrive in our current situation overnight. It has taken decades for socialism to subvert the minds of so many, and for cronyism to corrupt the government so completely. It will likely take decades to undo the damage (if we are able to survive those decades). A key element is education. Those who have been inculcated with communist convictions are so devout that facing the truth is difficult if not downright devastating for them. They are as fully committed to their causes as any religious zealot (in many ways, their belief system is a religion).

It will take time to overcome the brainwashing so many have suffered at the hands of public educators and the mainstream media. Yet education is the only way (other than bloodshed) that our course can be changed. We must do all we can to educate those who would just as soon crush us as cancel us. We must also do everything within our power to avoid up and coming generations falling into the same mental malaise. Children need a proper education in the principles for which men the likes of Washington and Jefferson fought to free this land from the tyranny of King George. We need to take back the schools and bring back either classical education (which would be the best of all possibilities, though I find it highly unlikely) or at least proper reading, writing, ‘rithmetic, and Zinn-free history. Only then, as our suitably-studied youth grow and themselves are able to participate in, and perhaps be elected to, our government, can change commence. Only then will the tide begin turning. Only then can we start the road back toward the freedoms and protections envisioned by those great men who penned the Constitution. To get back on track, we must get people to understand that our founding fathers were brilliant, not bumbling, in their approach to government, and to embrace Jefferson’s view of the extent to which government should be involved in men’s lives:

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Our founding fathers understood this basic principle regarding government: we don’t need a nursemaid; we need a knight in shining armor.