Our love affair with big government becomes more intense as our nation ages. But are we looking for love in all the wrong places?

After giving a speech in Toronto, Canada, several years ago, I spoke to some of the high school students in attendance. While talking about the role of the state with one of them, he said: “Government is there to make people happy.” He was a nice, intelligent young man, and he made the statement in a non-confrontational, matter-of-fact manner.

While such an attitude reminds one of what a certain road is paved with, unfortunately, his perspective is shared by millions of Americans. Of course, some of these people are well-meaning, but they nevertheless are lacking in a very traditional American quality: distrust of government. How American is it? Columnist Dr. Walter Williams treats this in his piece, “American Idea,” writing:

At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder [sic] distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.

Why have Americans lost this healthy suspicion? For one thing, since we Western moderns have never lived under a King George — let alone a Stalinesque tyranny — we often assume our nation could never descend into such a state. It also is no coincidence that as faith in God shrinks, government grows. After all, man tends to look to his “higher power,” to use that fashionable term, for aid and comfort. But if you don’t believe in the next world, your higher power will be in this one — and this fold’s most powerful entity is the biggest government. This is perhaps why people look to little g to provide sweetness and light for you and me. Yet one obvious difference between God and gov. is that the latter doesn’t share the former’s perfection. Given this, is government really like God, with bigger being better?    

Let’s start with a question: Would you like to empower the top executives at PepsiCo, Ford, Microsoft or Bear Stearns to control your life? Would you like them to determine your tax burden, regulate your businesses and devise school curricula for your children? This prospect disturbs many and is downright frightening to those suffering from “corporaphobia,” and I wouldn’t like the idea myself. But why then would you place such power in the hands of the federal government? Do people suddenly become angelic upon acquiring a government position? Does such status grant them a special dispensation from the frailties plaguing man?

Oh, but isn't the federal government balanced because it comprises 535 duly elected representatives, the Supreme Court and the President? True, it isn’t a dictatorship, so power is somewhat dispersed. But then how about filling those slots with the same number of top executives from across the corporate world and then giving them carte blanche?

If you’d say that corporate types are a group of elitists lacking in diversity, this may be true. But what are politicians? Do they represent an accurate cross-section of America? Before answering, remember that we don’t pluck these people out of a phonebook. While they may come in many shapes, sizes, colors and both sexes, they also are a select group. They have the drive and means to run for office and possess greater than average political skills. They are wealthier and have more formal education than the average American, and, most strikingly, the majority of them are lawyers. (Note: I’d seriously consider a law — legitimized by constitutional amendment if necessary — prohibiting lawyers from running for public office. We already have one branch of government, the judicial, that is a lawyers’ playground. Why should the other two be populated with members of the same legalistic milieu? Talk about a destructive lack of diversity.) 

Let’s place this in further perspective. Many lament the rise of Wal-Mart and death of the small mom-and-pop shop. Not only does the phenomenon change the face of small-town America, it has other effects as well. For example, we all know that a small, intimate business with ties to its community offers better, more personalized service than a large corporation; for one thing, not only is the former’s owner often the fellow you meet on the street, but you also can see him when patronizing his establishment. In contrast, the top dogs at a large company are anonymous figures whose rarified air you not only will never breathe but would even have trouble locating.

And what would we not apply this to? Would you rather place your children in a corporate daycare center whose executives make their decisions 1000 miles away or in a local one run by people in your town? What about law enforcement? Blackwater or the local sheriff? What about your schools? Big corporation or local? How about when you need your car repaired, medical care, a nurse for an aging parent, a plumber or a carpenter? Big corporation or local?

OK, why should this answer change simply because the giant entity is public rather than private?

Nevertheless, many people would give us a Wal-Mart government (at, inevitably, a Saks Fifth Avenue price). But if you can’t trust your local officials — who are often the people you meet on the street and whom you can talk to at town hall — how can you trust federal officials? How does it make sense to out-source local responsibilities to nameless, faceless, anonymous bureaucrats 1000 miles away, people to whom you’re just a number?

This brings us to the principle of “subsidiarity,” which correctly states that the smallest unit of society capable of performing a given function should be the one to do so. This is why small government shouldn’t be a Republican, conservative or even just a constitutionalist idea; it is simply a correct idea. It is why it’s not even just a governmental idea; it applies to everything. If the “family government” can handle a task, a community organization’s “government” cannot do a better job; if the former cannot tackle something but the latter can, there’s no reason to involve local government.

And the feds are the last link in this chain.

Once this is understood, it becomes apparent that a small-government philosophy isn’t synonymous with hatred for government. It’s synonymous with recognition of and respect for the various “governments” and their roles.     

Lastly, remember, there has never been a government of godlike charity and benevolence, but there have been many of devilish barbarity and violence. Big government is the small idea that great power somehow breeds great virtue. Small government is the big idea that man’s vice must be kept in a small cage.  

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	Daniel 4:17b "that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men". I'd say the word base pretty much describes the quality of our leaders for several decades. The only time that government is going to work perfectly is when it is being run by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself from Jerusalem.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 23, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

DDW wants perfection but "perfection" is not what the JBS or anyone else is genuinely seeking to obtain in America or for that matter any place else in the world. Bringing government down in size is the goal. In America that means confining it to its proper constitutional size and limitations. The Founders did so it is a doable task. Don't use Jesus as an excuse not to do what is achievable. Perfection is not the goal. Doing away with the DHS and the Fed is part of the goal as is getting out of the UN. Those things are within our abiltiy to do. They only require that we follow Robert Welch's plan as laid out clearly in the Blue Book.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 24, 2009
Votes: +1

RP said:

... In defense of DDW, I don't think he was trying to say we should not work to improve the status quo because it can't be perfect. We can (and should) AIM for perfection, but we will never be able to achieve it until Christ returns. That event is out of our hands and we have to work with what we have now. Concerning Daniel 4:17... this is spoken by Nebuchadnezzar to Daniel as he is relating his dream. I quote from a commentary on Daniel by G. Coleman Luck: All is done "that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men." Like others in high position, Nebuchadnezzar had ignored the fact that all his prosperity was due to the blessing of the Almighty. He needed to be forcibly reminded that God is sovereign in His control. To demonstrate this, He sometimes "setteth up over it the basest of men" and accomplishes His purposes even through them. It would seem to me that having "the basest of men" over is is not the problem. The problem is "His purposes". Is the purpose chastisement or blessing... or both? The "evil" which has come upon us may be chastisement. By fighting that "evil" (which is what Lee Gonzales promoting) may well yield "blessing". I'm with Lee on this one.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 24, 2009
Votes: +0

eyeopener said:

Fire doesn't need to be distrusted, only handled responsibly Distrust of government was a great step forward, but another step forward is the recognition that government, like fire, is simply a useful tool that will burn the house down if it gets out of control. I don't "distrust" fire - I simply follow the advice that I get from the fire department when I use it; advice such as, keep a fire extinguisher handy, smoke detectors all over the house, keep the fire contained and only use it for what you really need it for. And, of course, if you can use electric heat instead, that's even safer. Freedom is a matter of knowing what works and what doesn't work in human affairs, and favoring the former over the latter. That requires two things: discernment and character, because it is so easy to believe a sales pitch that makes us feel we don't have to work too hard, and will still be taken care of.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 25, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Peter Steele said:

Basic Government by Clarence Carson I have the book Basic Government by Clarence Carson as my Dad Peter Steele earned a Valley Forge Freedoms Foundation award in 1957. The award has General George Washington on one knee praying to God for victory and free our country from King George III. I have Thomas E. Woods' book Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers and a book on Thomas Jefferson who never fathered Sally Hemings' children. Dad was badly hurt by LBJ and Vietnam hurt me. BGen Peter F. Steele, USMC [Ret] son of the late RADM Peter Steele, USN [Ret] and friend of Barry M. Goldwater, Sr.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 25, 2009
Votes: +0