Nathan Harter
August 21, 2008 01:38 pm
—
Our system of government has evolved to divide the labor of doing things for the community, so that churches do not fight wars, for example, and soldiers do not win souls. Different agencies do different things. There is no reason to look every time to government for remedies.
You do not expect the government to alleviate your rash, pick your vegetables, or trim your hedges. You can do plenty of things for yourself, and what you cannot do or do not want to do, you prefer to have a choice whom you hire. That is part of what we mean by freedom.
One reason for the division of labor is to let the experts handle what they do best. Which would you rather have come fight your fire: firemen or the staff from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles? If we let folks specialize, then we presumably get better service. Those who do something best, let them do it.
In such a system, however, we get a few kinks. For one thing, we might not trust those who claim to accomplish what they say they will accomplish. We learn to distrust contractors, car salesmen, and lawyers, because we feel at a distinct disadvantage. One hears stories…and believes them. So we conclude that the specialists bear watching.
For another thing, the specialists are supposed to work together and coordinate, but does that happen? How do you get your various doctors to communicate, so that your medications and treatments are compatible? How do you convince your financial advisor to partner with your accountant? That doesn’t always happen.
Yet another kink is that some needs simply fall through the cracks. What most people can do, a few individuals cannot, whether due to disability, for instance, or poverty. Who takes care of them? And some needs are simply out there, where nobody intervenes, and the problems not only persist but pile up.
It is only natural, therefore, to look around for somebody to step forward and handle these kinks in the system. Somebody must bear ultimate responsibility, we assume, for seeing that our lives run smoothly. And it also makes sense to look to government as the agency of last resort. When nobody fixes something, then government must. That is a common assumption.
It is also that type of thinking that will elect Barack Obama, because he presents himself as the man who will oversee a government that works out the kinks and ensures that you get what you need. So no matter what dilemma or predicament you experience, just call him up. He will see to things, like a resourceful uncle.
This promise implicit in Obama’s campaign includes activities that used to be entrusted to other agencies. Not only will he regulate these other agencies, on your behalf, but he will take over their functions, if that’s what voters want. He even told us he wants supreme court justices who think this way. What he promises is an activist government, in contradistinction to Bill Clinton who declared the era of big government over.
I recall Republicans fretting that Hillary-Care was going to be a government takeover in the 1990’s of seven percent of the nation’s economy. They did not want government to run everything. So far, so good. Where they got in trouble, among other things, is they didn’t ask themselves why health care consumes that much of our economy. So the voters look to Obama because the systems we have in place do not seem to work. “Won’t somebody save us?” And while we elect the closest thing to a socialist since FDR, watch what happens. It will be instructive.
As an aside, during the candidates’ interviews at the Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, Obama seemed more thoughtful. McCain seemed more decisive. Obama will entertain possibilities. McCain will cope with realities. Much as I try not to seek salvation in national politics, I couldn’t help but wish the two men could strike a deal: McCain for a single term, with Obama as his running mate.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
Nathan Harter