How Much Government Do We Need? (3/4/07)
Democrats may feel excited about the upcoming 2008 Presidential race, but realities about what the public wants may temper this excitement. Now is the time for the party to present a convincing theme to the voters.
At least since the "tax revolt" movement of 1978, when California and other states reduced property taxes, the public mood has been sharply opposed to raising taxes. If the era of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" of social programs to solve the public's problems wasn't finished by the time he left office, it was certainly through by 1978.
At that point, there was less talk about using taxes to fund government programs and more talk about reducing the size of government. Ronald Reagan struck a chord by saying we needed to "get the government off our backs." Republicans still say this and Democrats rarely know how to respond.
Since this applause line goes to the matter of why we have government in the first place, Democrats should respond by discussing a society without government. Better known as anarchy, this theory relies upon the citizens of society to voluntarily cooperate with each other to form solutions to problems.
In this society, citizens may notice a pothole in the road or a broken traffic light. They would have to meet and discuss whether to fix these nuisances and, if so, whom to hire and how much to pay for them.
Would YOU attend this kind of meeting?
Or, consider the complaints of those who want to start a business. Right now, many of them have to get a business license license to sell comic books, for instance. In anarchy, they could simply find a building for their shop and start selling to customers.
Nothing could go wrong with comic books, right? Well, what if the owner failed to inform the buyers that he was selling stolen material? They could call the police - oops, there are no police in anarchistic societies! No courts, either. They were a part of the government that we had to get off our backs. By the time enough outraged citizens could be summoned to confront the unethical businessman, he would be out the door with no forwarding address.
Could YOU imagine having no recourse if you bought a stolen car?
At the national and state levels, representatives currently vote on a plethora of issues every week on our behalf. With anarchy, there would be no politicians. Before you cheer at that possibility, consider:
Are YOU willing to vote on all political issues, such as abortion, gun control and handling global warming?
Now that it is clear that society without government would be a disaster, we can ask the real question: how much government do we need?
The overwhelming majority of liberals and conservatives would likely agree that we need the government to protect us as a nation and as individuals, to provide an infrastructure (such as roads, traffic lights, freeways, etc.) and to care for those who cannot support themselves.
The Democratic Party's job now is to tell the public to what extent it will carry out these goals. Does protection mean the police and the armed forces alone or does it mean consumer protection from fraudulent business practices? Do we need zoning laws to protect property owners from objectionable uses of nearby property, such as refineries? And should the armed forces protect United States citizens living in other nations?
Questions on infrastructure include whether toll roads are a more efficient and fair way to make people pay for transportation. The questions could also include whether the government should contract with private sector bidders to build traffic lights and whether the lowest bidder should necessarily win.
But the biggest question Democrats must answer is whom the government should intervene on behalf of to support them. No one seriously complains about Social Security for the elderly (after all, they paid for it) and the disabled who cannot work, but who else legitimately needs help?
Recently, this question came into play in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (officially non-partisan but known to be a Democrat) signed an ordinance requiring several hotels in the City to pay employees a "living wage." This wage is calculated to approximate the poverty line for the area and is funded by the businesses or by higher taxes. With the living wage, supporters say, an employee can support their family.
This idea is where Democrats ought to draw the line on government support. Legitimate support helps people who cannot help themselves. These workers could have instead done what many others have done and pursued other work or gone to school to develop better job skills. They certainly had no business starting a family if their wages were not sufficient to do so. As harsh as it sounds, the perception of Democrats supporting positions like the living wage drive voters away.
It is time to use issues to create a new theme. For instance, businesses who hire illegal immigrants should be charged their health care/hospital costs. People who send their children to private grade and high schools should be denied public grants for college. Those who drive SUVs should only be allowed access to gas station pumps every other day.
There are no free rides, so forget about giving things away to people who haven't earned it. Pretty soon we won't have much left.