I would love to do something proactive, especially considering I have a lot going on in my head about the current state of the world, the Olympics (professionals, doping, etc)., but I can’t get motivated to put my finger on specific thoughts. Those that know me are probably wondering if it’s really taken me this long to figure out I don’t pinpoint my thinking, but they’re stupid, so I’m going to ignore them for the time being.
I have an objective here, but I am just going to let my mind wander (as always). So, if something stands out, bring it up, I’ll tackle things as they come, or later in another post.
Dugh posted this on his site a couple of weeks ago but I just got around to reading it. I’m sure he was waiting for a response of some sort. I’m surprised it took this long to get around to it, but as I said in the first paragraph, I was looking to do something proactive as opposed to reactive. I have given in, and am simply going to be reactive to it (The original article can be found here). For those who don’t want to read it, I’ll include each (without the author, Lawrence Brit’s commentary), along with my own perspective.
First of all, one has to remember the whole purpose of government. Put aside the textbook definition of it for a moment and realize its purpose. Thomas Jefferson stated that government is for those that cannot govern themselves. Government’s purpose is not to suppress or control, but by its very nature, it has to suppress and control, otherwise it isn’t much of a government. A government with no authority would be much like the United Nations, a governmental body with no control. One which members could ignore or abide by, depending on what they want to do individually (yes, the US is guilty of this, but so are many others). Because the United States is the richest, most powerful country on the planet, it stands to reason that they will benefit the least from cooperation with the rest of the world…but as always, I digress
Government is the rules of a society, whatever society that may be. Much like a football game, or a soccer game, or any other sport for that matter, government sets down the rules by which the game is played. This game is life (more or less). Some countries allow more freedom, some allow less. Imagine a football game where there were no rules, or there were rules, but no one to enforce them.
Government and individuals are constantly in conflict with one another. The government wants to keep people safe, while allowing as much freedom as possible. To maintain that balance however, individuals give up their freedom. Any time more than one person is involved in anything, some compromises will have to be made. The United States is nearly 300 million people, compromise, suppression, and control are all inevitable.
Our government is more oppressive than I would like. It won’t allow me to lather myself up with melted butter and run naked through the Castro (no, I’m not planning on it, just wanted to really disgust you guys before I move on). I would argue that the system isn’t broken, but it definitely needs some adjustments. Priority number one should be to start allowing states to do what they want again. Make the federal government smaller. If one state wants to do something, then let them (obviously within reason, but that’s the purpose of the Constitution). The Bill of Rights will protect individuals from too much state power, but if Utah wants to restrict things and Nevada wants to encourage them, then so be it. I hear the argument all the time that states’ rights do exist. I highly doubt they still exist as they were originally intended. I’m supposed to be defending our current government against this argument that it is becoming a fascist state however, so, I’m just going to get to it.
I’ve put them in the same order as in the article, and the points are in bold and italics . (From Lawrence Brit) Mr. Brit does a great job of identifying some common threads in some fascist states from past and present, then makes a quick claim that we’re headed in that direction as well. I DO NOT DISAGREE with his list, but applying it to the United States I feel is a bit too far. I know Doug will disagree, but he I believe he has been expecting this from me.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
I’m not sure what he’s talking about here. The only groups spouting nationalism are the same groups that always have spouted it. I can hardly disagree with these groups considering most of them are connected to the military in some way. Being nationalistic is supporting what they do. The nationalistic fervor did rise immediately after 9/11, but dissipated just as quickly. He mentions xenophobia…who is xenophobic in the country? Oh, right, the KKK, or other racially motivated supremacist groups. The xenophobia that exists against Arabs, while regrettable, isn’t born from hatred, but rather fear, and it’s not fear created by or fueled by the government.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
Again, and I realize I’ll get a lot of crap for this one, but I wrote on some aspects of this before (click to read). Are human rights more infringed upon now than previously? Yes, but we also now understand more about pollution, which leads to more governmental regulation of industry. We are trying to make sure human rights are not violated, and the irony is that leads to more rules, more enforcing things that many people (those that respect others) don’t need rules on. When it is legal to sue a person over anything, for any reason, people will take advantage of that. It leads to the need for more control. Take the Americans with Disabilities Act. No one should say that a person in a wheelchair should be denied certain things because they can’t get into a building. Enforcing rules that require ramps (etc) into buildings however, means more rules. More rules by their very nature, mean more oppression. Oh, right, I forgot, I’m not hurt by a ramp built to a governmental structure. It leads to more taxes, which come out of my pocket. I’m not arguing against ADA, or against this type of tax, my point is such rules didn’t exist before. As a result, I had more money to do what I wanted. Taking that money away is an oppression of my rights. I’m happy to lose that money in this example. I’m going to leave it at that. Based on even my argument however, I’d have to agree, our government is failing at this one, but not for the reasons one would think. Our country is too big for complete freedom, and our government is run by mostly people who don’t know what’s it’s like to be a normal, everyday, average person (another topic for another time).
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
Unfortunately (for me) I’d have to again agree. But remember, I mentioned it at the start of this post, one of the government’s primary purposes is to protect the people. People are afraid of terrorists. We don’t live in terror, but there is definitely a heightened state of fear. While terrorists don’t have to be Arab, or Muslim (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind), traditionally they are Arab. That is unfortunate. If the government does nothing about it they will be chastised for doing nothing. If they do something they are viewed as evil and oppressive. Kind of a no win the way I see it.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
The military is smaller than previously and many young people are steered away from military service (which in many cases would be beneficial for them) because of actions overseas (Iraq, in particular). But the military is not dominant in this country. In fact, I’d say just the opposite. Successful peacetime soldiers have always been good politicians, and not necessarily good military commanders. Those that play good politics when the war is with words, get promoted. Those who know how to win wars are less apt to compromise or aren’t very adept politicians. This leads the military being hamstrung from within. Not to mention the fact that the present day (back through to Vietnam) politicians are telling the military they have to conduct a “just war.” Here’s some advice for the current (and previous) administrations. If you’re going to start or fight in a war, play to win. If you’re unwilling to do that, don’t get involved.
5. Rampant sexism.
I don’t see this as an issue today. Sure, the hardcore feminists would disagree, but when political decisions are made to make it possible for women to compete with men in generally male dominated positions (firefighters, police officers, fighter pilots), I’d say sexism exists, but not from the perspective that women are oppressed. Personally I don’t care who is saving me from the burning building. Man, woman, black, white, ape, spider monkey, whatever, if they can do it, great. **Newsflash!!!** A fire doesn’t care who you are, if you can’t do it, you will die. If you can’t take 8Gs without passing out, you should not be flying a fighter plane. Just a thought.
6. A controlled mass media.
No, it’s not. Granted, the government does put some reporters in jail for not divulging sources at times and those reporters justifiably don’t generally give in, good for them (again, another topic of interest later…reporters interviewing soon to be “suicide bombers”). The press talks of the situation and people can form their own opinions. I wholeheartedly believe a free press is one of the biggest safeguards against government oppression. I would also argue however, the news media is out of control. It’s a by-product of what sells. Sensationalism in the news makes profit for the news. It’s not objective so sometimes a boring, important story may be overlooked. With a free press comes immense responsibility. The people only know what they are told, which is a double edged sword. Imagine a completely just government with a corrupt press.
7. Obsession with national security.
This one is tricky, because it flies right into the face of #2. Considering we have an open border with Mexico and Canada, I’d say we’re attacking the national security problem in the wrong way. Governments SHOULD be obsessed with national security, it’s their job. We don’t do enough for national security. Granted, more emphasis on it means less rights, but I’m not in government so that’s not a problem I’m in any position with which to deal.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
OK, I have to concede another one. This country was founded by Christians. It’s natural that they dominate the government. Some of them are more fanatical than they need to be, but this isn’t an indicator that we’re headed toward fascism. I don’t really see this as such an indicator in any country, considering most countries’ ruling elite are tied to the dominant religion.
9. Power of corporations protected.
This one is enigmatic. The corporations are the ones that drive the economy through both creation of jobs and production of whatever it is that they make. I’m not going to defend the corporation, because it seems evident that they do have insurmountable power. I won’t however, go off the deep end and suggest that they’re evil. Some of them are. Enron, Worldcom, where they are obviously exploiting workers for the gain of a tiny few are evident. That doesn’t mean however, that all corporations are bad. The government does need to regulate corporations. Emphasis should be placed on American products. The trade deficit is mostly out of control and could be mended with proper governmental regulation (not arbitrary regulation, but something). Individual businesses still outnumber corporations for obvious reasons, but corporations employ the most people and generate the most income. Conceding this point is difficult, but I’ll go ahead and do so, but with severe reservations. The nature of our government and economic system leads me to preferring “regulation” though #10.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
Labor unions today have become as bad as the corporations themselves. Not because they’re oppressive, but because they’ve morphed from collections of workers banding together for self-preservation, to collections of workers who don’t care about what goes on at the management level because someone else is taking care of it. That’s all fine and good when the group taking care of it isn’t getting as wealthy off the average worker. Union leadership frequently backs ridiculous ideologies and membership supports its leadership. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because that’s what they’re told to do for the “good of all.” For example, in the last California election, the teachers’ union banded together to stop increased requirements for tenure. The proposition would not have ended tenure it would have simply made acquiring tenure more difficult. Considering tenure is mostly automatic job security that no other profession has, I’d say increasing the requirements to attain it wasn’t an oppressive move at all. Some teachers are tenured after two years. Two years, and they’re pretty much guaranteed to not be fired (I should note, it’s not a guarantee, but it’s close).
In the same California election, the government tried to require unions to ask their members for permission to use union dues for political purposes. Effectively, union dues wouldn’t have changed, but unions would have had to have permission to use that money for political purposes. The union would be taking my money away, as always, but I get to decide if you can use it for purposes with which I don’t necessarily agree. This sounds very clear to me. But no, union leadership banded together and had its members vote that one down as well. One can always argue that it wasn’t the union leadership that voted it down, but just like everywhere else, people will generally do what they’re told, or follow a line based on what they always do. Vote for the “R” (Republican) or “D” (Democrat), not the person or the issues. Union membership does the same thing, union leadership says bad, vote no.
Ultimately, I’d agree with the deterioration of the union, but not because of governmental policy, but rather “corruption” of the leadership. Not corruption in the evil sense, but definitely a sense that is misguided.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Sorry, putting a cross in a jar of urine is not art (sorry, can’t find a picture…found commentary, but no picture). Nor is painting a cartoon version of a Black Mary (Jesus’ mom) and throwing elephant poop on it (yes, I read the caption under it, still doesn’t make it art). If one defines the “arts” as anything creative, then that’s a vague and utterly ridiculous definition. I can take a crap in the middle of the street and make a happy face. I could take a paint gun to a canvas and then write a two line poem on it. That could be creative. Or I can sell that same canvas to some moron with a couple grand in his pocket, that doesn’t make it art either. The Supreme Court, when identifying what “pornography” is, does use the artistic standard as a basis. Are pictures of naked women taken for the sole purpose of arousal, or is there some sort of artistic benefit (or something like that), and what is the “local standard.”
I realize that it’s hard to identify what the standard is, and that the standard in a city is going to be different than in a rural area. I also realize that creating these standards requires someone to identify what they are, which is a bad thing. I suggest that the museums that are funded with government money set some sort of standard of decency. There are plenty of rich people out there that would support a small, private gallery’s display of something offensive if the “art” doesn’t fit the standard. Is this “regulation?” Yes, but we’re talking about government funding of something, which means tax dollars. If my tax dollars are used to fund something, I should at least have a say in how they’re used.
Of course, in the case of Mary, it’s only the Christians that are offended. We’re not supposed to care about that. If that’s the case, then why not just draw some lines on a piece of paper, color them in, and call it art? (I realize I’m picking on “elephant poop mary” but it’s what I’ve linked). I can draw that well. What makes this different and controversial (and thus, appealing to some) is the fact that it is offensive to many. This “artist” has pawned off his lack of talent by doing something offensive. Sounds like Howard Stern…but that’s a different topic.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
Obsession? No. We are forced to hold our police to a higher standard, and they’re supposed to perform in circumstances most of us would not be able to handle. Their job is to make sure we are safe and as a result, end up intentionally putting themselves in situations most of us wouldn’t want to be in. It’s a tough job, and they are expected to do it. When they go over the line we’re always there with our cameras to make sure they get put “on trial.” Here’s the problem though, and this is a standard problem for every job. It’s the asshole that uses his club ten too many times that we see on camera, and that jackass should be punished. Most cops are good cops just trying to do their job. Some of them however, just like anywhere else, are going to be assholes. The problem with these assholes is their the ones enforcing the rules.
I would argue that police aren’t supported enough, but I would also argue that when they should be punished, frequently they are not. A cop that loses his/her cool only one time to the point where they are clubbing/shooting someone to death or serious injury, needs to be off the streets regardless of how good a cop they are. Their job is to maintain order under adverse situations, and they should be trained to control themselves when situations have come under control.
This is only part of the “problem.” I mention the police because they are the front line. I don’t see however, that our government is obsessed with crime and punishment. Yes, prisons are overcrowded. Yes, some crimes aren’t really that big a deal. If we’re not going to prosecute the law then let’s get rid of the law. All unenforced laws do is clutter up what needs to be enforced. If it’s important enough to debate and make a law about, then it’s probably a bad enough crime to enforce all the time (this opens up an entirely different argument like legalization of drugs, so I’ll leave it at that). The government has to have some sort of obsession with the law, because creating laws and having the ability to enforce them is the first priority of government. We have too many laws, but again, we have too many people.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
OK, again I’ll concede that cronyism exists. It always has, always will. Is it “rampant?” Not any more so than most other issues on this list. As the governmental bureaucracy gets bigger there are more opportunities to put in place “friends.” Most people in government positions have at least a modicum of talent in whatever position they’re in. Yes, the (now ex) Director of FEMA, Mike Brown, is an example of a guy who was probably clueless and shouldn’t have been there. Perhaps having someone else in charge would have made a difference, but I doubt it (the whole Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans situation was just a disaster, I doubt anyone short term could have stopped that). Administrations however, have generally had people that were qualified in positions of power. Whether one agrees with their politics or not is a different story entirely. Is our government corrupt? Again, disagreeing with a government does not make it corrupt. If one disagrees with most of what the government is doing, then it would be hard to get past feeling it is corrupt, but that doesn’t make it a corrupt system.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Our system basically requires a person to have money to be in power. I wish this were not so, but it is. Requiring money to fund an election doesn’t make the election fraudulent. Oh yes, I forgot, the current administration is in office and that election was “fraudulent.” Right. Any argument on this topic would require a defense of the 2000 presidential election. It could just as easily be argued that the media was responsible for that debacle. But the government can’t tell the media what to report, otherwise they are in clear violation of #6. The so called “confusion” of Florida counties would have easily been prevented had the voters actually looked at the ballot prior to the election itself. Every registered voter receives a voter information guide, approved by all parties in the election. In that voter information guide is a sample ballot. It is the responsibility of the voter to understand which hole goes to which candidate. If there is confusion, it is again the responsibility of the voter to ask questions to clarify (which can be done at the polling place). Assuming we can get past the issue of bad ballots, ultimately it would come down to the Supreme Court’s decision to make the Florida election official, which they did. What’s the alternative?
How about this? They just say Al Gore is the winner in Florida? That would make Bush antagonists happy, but according to the rules of the election and the ballots that were counted, that would have been wrong (Bush got more votes in Florida). Or another solution? Recount all the ballots in the questionable counties. OK, if we’re going to do that, then we have to recount them all, in all counties, in all states. Otherwise Florida votes are more important because they require double checking. We can’t have another national election, nor could we have another election in just Florida.
All these things aside, I won’t argue that all elections are going to be perfect. One could argue that dead people voted for Kennedy in the state of Illinois back in the 1960s. As a whole though, elections in the United States are not fraudulent. I’d also like to mention this isn’t an argument about the electoral college either, if you want to discuss that, let me know, I’ll write something on it. Give me something other than the 2000 presidential election to support fraudulent elections, because I just don’t buy it.
Ultimately, our government is huge, and with huge government comes the argument that it is out of control, and possibly even fascist. It is difficult to maintain freedoms as the population grows. As the country gets bigger the chances of offending someone goes up. As you start to insert different cultures and ideologies into a free society, naturally more people will have differing views on different things. I’m not going to argue that we have a perfect system. Nor am I going to imagine that there is no oppression, or that everyone is completely free. That would be ridiculous. I will argue however, that we’re not overly oppressed and not on the road to fascism any more than we have been in the past.
Within any free society, the government has to exist to allow a certain amount of “fairness” with respect to interpreting rights and infringement of those rights. With that freedom however, comes the responsibility to take care of oneself (and others, if you are so inclined and in that position). The primary responsibility in any free society falls on the people, not the government. Consistently looking to the government to solve all societal problems leads to increased lawmaking, which leads to more oppression. Like an athlete who constantly screams for the official to call foul, if the government is too involved there is no freedom. If the government listens to that complaint all the time (and generally, complaints can’t be ignored), then a free society becomes less free. Much like a referee, the government does its best work when it isn’t even noticed.
I apologize for the length of this post. I should break it up and it is longer than the article it’s responding to, but that’s life. It should be pointed out that I’m always up for discussion, I can respond to most anything you throw at me, and who knows, maybe I’ll agree with you. I personally don’t see this as overly controversial as posts go. History has shown that the “controversial” posts on this site are generally dealing with gay or religious issues, neither of which I spent time on, but one never knows.
Comments...
dugh daren wrote
2-24-2006 @ 00:31:13 (PST)
Eh?
I feel like you start each point by acknowledging it was written and then going off on a tangent. Obsession with crime and punishment doesn't have to do with a few bad cops, it has to do with punishments all out of proportion with the crime. It has to do with (fortunately failed) attempts to get citizens to report on fellow citizens for suspicious behaviour.Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts doesn't have to do with a definition of art so much as it does with cancelling most funding for arts in education. Disdain for the importance of human rights doesn't just have to do with simple internal things like the Americans with Disabilities Act, but also with Abu Ghraib and the interning of born Americans of Japanese decent during WWII.
Even points you concede seem sometimes to be for reasons that have nothing to do with why or how these trends could lead to something far worse. Religion and ruling elite tied together has little to do with how our founding fathers might or might not be christian (and wealthy) given that many (most?) of them thought there should be a distinct separation of church and state. I have a feeling that Bush, without espousing christianity and being born again and getting the Republican party wheels to focus on church goers would not have been elected.
Some of the more interesting portions of your post have little to do with addressing the points in bold so much as what you view as the nature, meaning and limitations of government. I don't think all legislation is a limitation of the citizenry, though certainly most of it does seem to infringe on freedom. Some legislation even supports freedoms. Not all taxation saves you money you could spend yourself. It would cost you a load more money to get to work without the public works that built the roads you travel on, to educate you so you could have the job you have, or to defend us from invasion or worse. Still, some money is a waste of government funding and serve only to get certain officials reelected. Sad.
Anyways, interesting post. It is interesting that your overall reaction to the points Mr. Britt makes apply to America today when the points as he analyzes them apply only to the commonalities of the fascist societies he studies no matter the insinuations before and after. Aren't you the least bit worried about a government that prevents people from bringing matches on a plane but allow someone to bring a bottle of wine that they can break and use to cut people? Or an administration that spies on it's own people without any oversight and we have to take their word for it that it's for our own good? (Nixon and a cross dressing FBI director come to mind here...).
I worry. I gripe. But I am hopeful. One of the irritations and blessings of our Constitution is that our elected officials are temporary. Unfortunately this isn't reflected in the power structures outside of government. Alas.
Blah blah blah. I'm stopping now because I could go on and on, just like you! :)
Click the button to