When discussing large federal programs, there is a tendency to focus on whether they are effective or ineffective. These discussions often lack the greater question. Did interference in business and individual lives inhibit freedom? Does bureaucratic “help” rob us of a freedom little mentioned , the right to self reliance?
“It is not a question of whether government is too big, or too small, but whether it works.”
This quote is one of the more memorable pieces of President Obama’s inaugural address. In that short phrase, is the difference between supply side Conservatism, and nanny state, big government liberalism. FDR also made Liberalism quite pronounced when he said,
“Not only our future economic soundness, but, the very soundness of our democratic institutions, depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men.”
So, what do these two quotes tell us about the mentality of these two men? It should be obvious that both believe in top down governance and aid.
Top down governance is based in a mistrust of people’s ability to solve their own problems. Apologists and defenders of massive spending programs, argue that these actions helped the economy and employment, which is certainly a dubious conclusion. Voices in the Obama Administration claim that their actions have saved and created thousands,
to millions, of jobs and will help prevent further down-turns. This is the same act that was sold by ensuring national unemployment would not rise above 8%, and unemployment is now above 10%. However, the arguments of the effectiveness of the “New Deal” or “The American Recovery Act (or stimulus),” are not as important as what affect this interference have with people’s lives and freedoms.
Arguing about how effective massive federal programs help in impacting employment, or the economy, misses a larger point. The question is, what is the role of those in power to “fix” economic cycles with “bold” action? What is the role of government, at any level, when it comes to the economy? Perhaps Ronald Reagan said it best in 1981,
“government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
This should be the way that a majority of crisises should be seen by those in power and not just in the economic matters. Bureaucratic interference in the economy, always spreads into other aspects of the lives of citizens .
On a score of issues, leaders should be asked; in your time in office, were citizens more or less free? Was the cause of liberty strengthened? These questions, are for some, abstract or amorphous, but there are simple ways to answer these questions. In the case of FDR, history would score him poorly on these questions for the following reasons: price controls, tariffs, higher taxes, creation of new taxes and remaining in office for well into his, unprecedented fourth, four year term just to mention a few. What about the initiatives that increased reliance on Uncle Sam; Social Security and The New Deal. Even if he had succeeded in reviving the economy, which he didn’t, his score on interference in the lives of many, is unmistakable. One could easily assert that in his painfully long time in power, U.S. citizens, and businesses were less free than when he first came to the office of President.
How have freedom and liberty done so far under our current administration? Higher sin taxes, nutritional “nudging,” and a few other orders, have certainly advanced the Nanny State. Businesses have been attacked with higher taxes and regulation, not to mention that profitable business leaders have been labeled “fat cats” by members of the executive branch. Dependency has been increased with the advancement of unions, welfare programs, and large federal stakes in Vehicle Manufacturing and Banking. There is also further dependency with the 787 billion dollar “stimulus” package, packed full of union only mandates, protectionist policies and ballooning of the size of the public sector. I have only scratched the surface but even if there were more concrete sign of recovery, the ends don’t justify the means. It should be obvious that the end of President Obama’s time in office will certainly leave the majority of citizens less free.
Now this same grading system should also be applied to the last Administration. Under George W. Bush, dependency on the federal Government was advanced with his prescription drug plan under Medicare. Plus restrictions on travel and package shipping certainly should be counted against his record. Spending increased under his watch, and the aforementioned Presidents, leaving a burden on future generations of tax payers. Restrictions on businesses were worsened on his watch, through bureaucratic accounting regulations and the most obvious example of interference, the bank bail-outs or “T.A.R.P” which has encroached on internal business practices. On the positive side of freedom, President Bush was the first President in 16 years to lower taxes and his two Supreme Court appointees have upheld the Second Amendment in defending gun rights in Washington D.C as well as in other places. The First Amendment was also upheld by these same appointees when certain campaign restrictions were lifted on corporations and unions. Over all, the result of the eight years, of the Bush Administration, must be seen as mixed as the economy was under his watch, when it comes to personal freedom.
Each Administration, in the examples mentioned above, have one large flaw. This flaw permeates so many in elected and unelected officials. It is the belief that the public and business must be rescued from failure. The last 100 years have seen countless Presidents, Governors, Congressmen and other offices, clamoring to protect people from failure and pain. Even when the actions of these officials had positive results, if personal liberty was in any way harmed, then the success was met by the stumbling of freedom.
The Founding Fathers understood that their new form of Government could not rightly insulate people from failure. It was said that while all men are created equal, this does not infer that they are all equal (in education, finances, stature and so on). They also believed that it was not the job of the new government to make everyone one equal in these ways; and, any attempt to do so smacked of tyranny. Believing that leaders must enable their citizen to succeed and fail, was an integral belief. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and many others had experienced many failures. Washington lost more battles then he won, lucky for us he won the right ones to be ultimately victorious. No wise governing entity was their to protect General Washington from his failure, which is probably why in the end we won battles at the right time. Never the less, Washington, like everyone, deserved the right to fail.
Freedom and liberty are not served by those leaders who are so eager to lend a hand by creating larger and larger safety nets. Governing the least should be the largest distinguishing characteristics of American leaders. We as citizens have the responsibility to insist that our leaders have a smaller footstep. While the beautiful thing about have a democratic republic is that when the citizens are watching those in power, those leaders who don’t live up to advancing liberty and freedom, are fired. When our leaders deny citizens or businesses the right to fail, it is time for those leaders to be removed. They deserve the right to fail too.
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
