A Modern Government - Research Paper Example

?Is Bigger Government Better Government, based from the arguments of Jim Demint and Jeff Madrick. As a starting point for a reflection on the ideal size of government, it is useful to remind ourselves what the purpose of government in the modern world is. Most people would accept that government is necessary, and that society would disintegrate into a frightening and chaotic mess if government was not in place. We only need to look at the poverty, instability and high levels of human suffering in countries such as the Sudan or Tunisia to see what life is like when despotic rulers prevent the emergence of a democratic and responsible system of government. In fact a modern government has many purposes. Perhaps the most important of these are: making laws that are fair and just for all citizens, organizing and policing society, providing infrastructure such as healthcare, education, transport and financial systems, and representing the country’s interests in the wider world. It must also, of course, provide for elections and engage in dialogue with the public over policies in order to ensure that it reflects in a broad sense the will of the majority of the people, and considers the interests of minorities and those who are not in agreement with the ruling faction. In each of these areas there are arguments for more or less government involvement, and consequently bigger or smaller investment in government offices and budgets to undertake these tasks. This paper will explore first the ideas of Jeff Madrick, who favors the big government approach and then the ideas of Jim DeMint, who is a supporter of the smaller government approach. Finally these opposing views will be compared in order to establish which of the two is better. Jeff Madrick in his book The Case for Big Government argues that people in modern America cling to a myth about the early stages of American History. This myth suggests that in the days before modern cities arose and mass industrialization became the norm, people had less government, and were able to live as they want to. The age of the pioneers and settlers is one which people like to idealize, praising the virtues of self-reliance and freedom from an interfering state which only wants to create unnecessary rules. Madrick cites a letter which Jefferson wrote, saying that a good government must be a “wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which 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.” (Madrick, 2009, p. 33) The letter was written when Jefferson was not in charge, and Madrick points out that in practice, when he had responsibility for managing the expansion of the territory to include Louisiana, Jefferson did not follow through on this ideal view of government. He realized that land ownership of the vast new territories was the crucial factor which would determine the prosperity of individuals and organizations alike and he did not trust market forces to ensure that the new land would be distributed fairly: “The broad distribution of land he thought ideal could be accomplished only through government control and regulation.” (Madrick, 2009, p. 33) Throughout America’s history, from this time onwards, critical investments such as railroads, canals, and schools were supervised and regulated by state and local government officials. The benefits of this involvement can still be seen today: standardized gauges for the wagons, a transport network which serves both local and national needs and a fundamental and ever-increasing commitment to high quality education for all children and young people. While commitment to the free market economy has been an important factor in America’s economic success in the twentieth century, it has also seen several disastrous depressions and crashes, with cycles of boom and bust that have a serious impact on large sections of the population. In Madrick’s words, unfettered capitalism in America has in the past at times been “abusive.” (Madrick, 2009, p. 30) Looking over the last fifty years in particular, Madrick notes that workers, and male workers in particular have suffered a “stagnation of their wages” (Madrick, 2009, pp. 92-103) This leads to pressure on the family and a need for more jobs, so that women can also work, and better childcare, since both parents are increasingly forced to work longer hours in order to make a decent living. Where are these new jobs and services going to come from, unless government steps in and provides them? An important argument in Madrick’s book is therefore the fact that many of society’s most difficult problems can only be solved by proactive and constructive measures taken at governmental level. There is not sufficient incentive in the free market economy to ensure that all the wealth and profits created are fairly distributed, nor to ensure that the old, the young, the sick and the economically weak are enabled to fully participate in society. Madrick argues that governments are there to get things done, and deal with all the changes and challenges that are bound to arise. Not only can an adequately resourced government anticipate and deal with issues, it can guarantee checks and balances that take care of people in an equitable way. His argument is therefore based on economics and a commitment to social justice. Madrick sees higher taxation as a necessary measure to ensure that American wealth is shared out to include everyone. Jeff DeMint, in contrast to Madrick, frames the issue in a much more oppositional way. For this author the question is not so much about where the line should be drawn between individual freedom and collective responsibility, but rather how Americans can free themselves from the oppression of socialism. One analogy which he draws, is to compare contemporary America with the English story of Robin Hood, a robber and bandit beloved by the people because he stole from the rich to give to the poor. (DeMint, 2009, p. 39) In DeMint’s view, big government, by which he means high taxation to provide a high level of social services for the poor, is a drain on the American economy, and it robs the economically strong of their ability to generate the wealth on which the country depends. His right-wing views promote the ideals of capitalism, namely hard work, persistence, and a focus on energy and productivity. He quotes the German philosopher Hayek on the dangers of socialism, and Benjamin Franklin on the negative effects of dependence on government hand-outs: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” (DeMint: 2009, p. 41) This robust line of thinking is based on Darwinian ideas of “survival of the fittest. ” It stresses the right of the strong to maintain their superior position in society and maintains that supporting the weak creates a culture of dependency which is harmful both to the individuals involved and to the state as a whole. DeMint concedes that it is necessary to provide a minimum of welfare services to sustain the very weakest members of society, but in general he has little sympathy for people who draw on government support systems. The Democratic Party’s aim, according to DeMint, is to encourage this dependency, and make people believe that they will not manage to cope without the aid of the state: “In so many words, “freedom” is their enemy. Ironically the more dependent Americans become on government, the more insecure and fearful they become.” (DeMint, 2009, p. 49) DeMint argues that people are more free when they escape from this cycle, and that they must learn to accept risks and setbacks as the price of this freedom. Another factor which DeMint stresses is the possibility of growing support for the big government policies of the Democratic Party: “Republican supporters are decreasing in number as more Americans become dependent on the government and as the number of people who pay taxes declines.” (DeMint, 2009, p. 51-52) One of the features of “big government”, according to DeMint is the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups which intervene in government decision-making to argue for subsidies and special treatment. The federal farm subsidy is identified as one such instance (DeMint, 2009, p. 117) and this measure is presented as “lavish” and a “Democrat giveaway” or “taxpayer handout.” In DeMint’s view this very costly scheme redistributes taxes, largely drawn from big businesses and urban taxpayers to rural areas. DeMint alleges also that one effect is to shore up undeserving organizations and individuals who are already very wealthy and often directly connected to particular senators. In summary, then, DeMint proposes that a laissez-faire approach is better than a commitment to high levels of government intervention. He quotes the economist Milton Friedman on this point: “The maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing… It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to try to do something about them, you not only may make them worse, but you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere.” (DeMint, 2009, p. 119) He points out areas of waste and inefficiency that can creep in if a government is too big, and the deadening effect on the economy that high dependence on welfare can bring. A number of facts and figures are cited, showing the cost of some expensive initiatives that were introduced by Democrats, and it is implied that these measures bring little benefit to the state, but rather burden the taxpayer with huge costs and take away the right of taxpayers to decide themselves what to do with their hard earned cash. Both of these authors argue valid positions that can broadly be aligned with left wing views (Democrats) in the case of Madrick and right wing views (Republican) in the case of DeMint. At various points they both appeal to historical events, previous politicians, famous economists, and particular examples of policies which they judge to be good or bad. Both of them also engage, at times, in partisan commentary on the issues, promoting the ideas of left or right in such a way as to encourage support for their party, and denigrate the other side. In order to consider the deeper issues, and not become side-tracked into party-political grandstanding, it is necessary to consider first of all the most basic, underlying assumptions which are used. Most people, in all regions of the world, and of all social classes, would without thinking, instinctively express a preference for less taxes, as opposed to more taxes, and wider personal liberty as opposed to more limits and constraints. No employee or small business owner likes to work for a wage and find that most of it has been already spent in the form of compulsory deductions over which he or she has no direct influence. It is human nature to seek one’s own interests, and those of one’s immediate family, before considering the bigger picture and the needs of others in the locality, the nation at large, and the wider world. This suggests that people have a natural tendency towards preferring a small and non-interventionist government. Wealthy individuals would argue that the more income they have, the larger the amount that is taken by the state, the greater the injustice is when big government levies high taxes. Poorer people who have a job, would argue that the less money they have, the less they can afford high taxes and the greater the injustice when they are forced to pay high taxes out of the little that they have. People who do not pay taxes generally would prefer to be in the position of being wage-earners, because whatever level of support they receive from the state, it is likely to be less than that afforded by employment, and it comes with a stigma attached. All three groups have an inherent resistance to big government and high taxes. On the other hand, however, these same people would instinctively want to see more and better schools and hospitals, a functioning criminal justice system, job creation schemes, social welfare, airports, and freeways and a national railway system. Common sense tells us that there is a direct link between the level of taxes and the level and quality of government services that are provided, but most people forget this fact because there is usually little or no perceivable direct link between the tax system and the benefits of government activity. People can see the existence of a prison facility, for example, and may be concerned at the level of funding that it requires, but it is difficult to imagine the social and financial consequences that would arise if no such facilities were provided. One of the ways of deciding how big government should be, therefore, is to examine carefully what exactly the costs of it are, and what exactly the benefits are. People need to be educated on these points, and facts and figures need to be presented in a truthful, non-political way. Waste and inefficiency are obviously bad qualities in any government system, large or small, and it would be fair to say that both Democrat and Republican styles of government continually have to deal with issues in this area. Lobbying and special interest groups, even corruption and malpractice in government are also present at times on both sides, and these are matters which a free society needs to legislate for and regulate carefully. Democracy requires a certain amount of lobbying and pushing from the public, and it would be wrong to suppress this feature just because of a fear that resources might flow to the wrong people. The fundamental core of the argument between big and small government lies in the acquisition and distribution of resources. Conservatives traditionally believe in “conserving” what has been gained, and in allowing the people who generate wealth to be the ones who decide what happens to it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, since many very wealthy Americans act responsibly and commit huge parts of their fortunes to good causes like education, charity or investment in new ventures which bring jobs and prosperity to thousands of people. Other wealthy Americans, however, use their wealth selfishly, and make sure that others are prevented from sharing any profits, including those who helped to generate those profits in the first place. Clearly government must find ways to step in here and moderate the excesses, forcing wealthy people to act in a way which supports the common good. If government is too small, it lacks the power and authority to take on these larger players in capitalist society. It may be that part of the right wing suspicion of big government is resentment of its ability to curtail these freedoms to bend the rules for their own benefit. Liberals believe in free enterprise too, of course, but they focus less on the wealthy and much more on the poor. It is quite wrong to equate the views of liberals with “socialism,” and especially with extreme versions of socialism like National Socialism in Germany of the 1930s and 1940s, or Soviet socialism in the middle of the twentieth century. It is not as simple as that, and liberals would argue that elements of both capitalism and socialism inform their argument for a bigger rather than smaller government. Prosperity and wealth are not only created by big business and wealthy people. The ordinary citizen with a modest income contributes his taxes and supports private enterprises too, and there are many more of them than there are big business owners. A moderately interventionist government, on the larger rather than smaller side, can mitigate the risks and negative effects of free market capitalism, partly by preventing some potential dangers through proactive legislation, and partly by supporting those who are victims of its worst excesses. Unemployment, for example, may be a temporary evil from the point of view of an industrialist or politician, but it is an absolute disaster for the ordinary family. On balance, therefore, there is a need for a tightly managed, efficient but reasonably big government, with sufficient powers to steer society and redistribute the considerable wealth that America generates. Without this in place, the American dream can be accessed by only the elitist few and this would be contrary to the constitution which guarantees the right of all citizens to pursue happiness. References DeMint, Jim. Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism. Nashville: Fidelis Books, 2009, pp. 85-128. Madrick, Jeff. The Case for Big Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009. McKenna, George and Feingold, Stanley. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Political Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2010. Read More