One more thing I want to say on this string, then I quit.  That’s a promise.

At least half the problem of “hating the government” comes from the in-your-face evidence that our government hates us. Proof:
1. Taking our young men and women and killing them or making them kill others for oil, and refusing to stop even though tens of thousands of us are against it.
2. Taking our tax money to bail out rich corporations who got rich from stealing money from us in the first place. They remain rich; we remain poorer, lacking good schools, roads, clean air etc. etc. Houses mortgaged, credit cards over-spent, no jobs.
3. Keeping the truth of their activities hidden or handing out distorted “news.”
4. Arresting people for protesting or demonstrating. Using fear to distract people from the real facts.
5. Refusing to change, even though they know the bad effects of their decisions or lack of decisions.
  Behavior like this does not indicate that our government likes us very much.  On the contrary, it regards us as completely disposable, no matter what it says to the contrary. Actions speak louder than words.
  It is impossible to expect people to like something that mistreats them like this.

Grandpaw: It would seem that we were a little late in “socializing” the corporative thieves you listed in your comment above.  Also, the cost to taxpayers in dollars and jobs was a bit prohibitive when you consider what it is like for thousands of homeless families scratching dirt every day just to find crumbs.
  This, too, is “capitalism proving its worth”—and don’t you forget it. As long as sane regulation lags so far behind justice (which, historically speaking, looks inevitable), it is hard to plead the case that capitalism “makes its benefits available to the common man.”
  Whatever benefits the capitalist system has bestowed on the common man came largely through the blood, sweat and tears of the laboring classes, most of them overworked and underpaid.
  I live for the day when capitalists will either regulate themselves, or promote regulation rather than resist it.  Then we might get somewhere. (After we stop making money out of wars, I mean.)

“Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But only by socializing it have we been able to make its benefits available to the common man.  Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, a never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, IndyMac, Citibank, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, GMC to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.”
  grandpaw: It would seem that we were a little late in “socializing” the corporative thieves you listed in your comment above.  Also, the cost to taxpayers in dollars and jobs was a bit prohibitive when you consider what it is like for thousands of homeless families scratching dirt every day just to find crumbs.
  This, too, is “capitalism proving its worth”—and don’t you forget it. As long as sane regulation lags so far behind justice (which, historically speaking, looks inevitable), it is hard to plead the case that capitalism “makes its benefits available to the common man.”
  Whatever benefits the capitalist system has bestowed on the common man came largely through the blood, sweat and tears of the laboring classes, most of them overworked and underpaid.
  I live for the day when capitalists will either regulate themselves, or promote regulation rather than resist it.  Then we might get somewhere. (After we stop making money out of wars, I mean.)

A gov’t is only as good as the people who constructed it and are running it.

dissentispatriotic—On the contrary, “You’ve failed every history exam” very neatly encapsulates two important ideological positions about knowledge, one being that true knowledge proceeds from authority, and the other that insists that every person is able to interpret the Scriptures (or the physical universe, or whatever).  In 17th-century England the latter types were sometimes called “Dissenters”.

RE: Anarcissie, May 11 at 1:38 am

I’ve noticed you playing devil’s advocate. Arguing several sides of
the debate. Although I often strongly disagree with your opinions, I
appreciate you moving the debate forward in a reasonable and civil
manor. This is something that I could be more mindful of sometimes.

That last conversation that we had is appreciated. It was true debate
both sides being heard. And it made me realize that if I refer to
people as “Sparky” and say things like “you clearly failed every
history exam that you ever encountered” some important dialogue may
not happen. I will always be the first to admit when I am wrong, and
I was wrong to do that.

You made a good point that I am fortunate to be in the US where dissension will not cost me life or limb. It’s another important distinction that terms like “nationalism” can have a pluralistic
meaning. While I hate many of my governments actions, it is
governmental protections which allow me to say so. 

dissentispatriotic!

SoTexGuy, May 10 at 4:45 pm:
’... I admit to be still unsure about just what is so controversial or provocative in the piece to draw such wide and sustained response! ...’

For some reason people who are attracted to computers are often dubious about the intrinsic goodness of government and authority in general, unlike your typical proggie or neo-con.  One sees an unusual number of libertarians and anarchists popping up in the various computer-based discursive venues—a phenomenon which was noticed back in the ‘80s if not before.  Their disbelief of course provokes believers into further asseverations of the True Faith—and so it goes.

I was hoping to get more action out of the believers myself, but no one noticed my messages, I guess because of their shattering brilliance.

I liked this thoughtful and informative article.. My thanks to the author for it.

That it has attracted so many comments and comprehensive replies.. took me by surprise.. I have read through very many of the reader ‘contributions’. Some do add to or make pertinent comment on the author’s work..

I admit to be still unsure about just what is so controversial or provocative in the piece to draw such wide and sustained response!

That’s life in the ‘cyber-world’ I suppose.

Adios!

canyon critter—If you want to promote a minimal-government theory successfully I think you need to come up with some reasonable ideas about how things are going to get done that are now done by the government.  I’m not referring, of course, to the war, imperialism, surveillance and subsidies for the rich, which can be gotten rid of with no loss.  The big attraction of government is that it does a lot of things people actually want done, even though they complain about them and the taxes that support them, and may not do them very well.

Well, if someone required me to justify the statement “Dissent is patriotic” I would say that it was true in the case of the United States, because the country has a history of dissent; therefore, the dissenter is keeping up a fine old tradition of dissenters being tolerated (to some extent), ignored, and often proven right in the end.  It’s one of our standard national dramas.  But it certainly wouldn’t be patriotic in some places.

RE: Anarcissie, May 9 at 8:12 pm

I think that the Nazi propaganda machine used every term in their
language incorrectly and deceivingly for their political end. A great
example is the term “National Socialism”. The Nazis were certainly NOT
socialists. They exterminated(quite literally) the German socialist party
after their rise to power. Also buy using the term “fatherland” they
tainted the meaning of the word Patria because suddenly
“government”(father was a common euphemism for government) and “land”
were synonymous. That was one of the most dangerous lies used to
manipulate the German people because it implied that you could not love
the people and the land without loving the Nazis. Dangerous stuff! Some
of that ultra-Nationalist ideology still hanging around here in the US.
dissent is patriotic!

dissentispatriotic—Most of the time when I read or hear about patriotism the object of the patriot’s affections seems to be the nation-state he (the proposed patriot is usually male) seems to belong to.  The patriot prefers his nation-state to all others—Deutschland über alles and all that.  Where nationalism differs from that idea (in usage) seems to be that the concept of nationality is allowed to float over geographical and political regions to cause kinds of trouble mere devotion to a homeland could not hope to provoke.  But there is a mighty lot of overlap.

In any case, I don’t see how it’s particularly patriotic.  I don’t think patriotism often comes up to the high moral character of dissent.  Depends on the patria in question, I suppose.

RE: Anarcissie, May 9 at 12:19 p

You seem to be confusing definitions again. The words patriotism and
nationalism very often are misused(even by historians and authors), so let’s
clear the air a little.

Patria literally means “the homeland” (not “home government”). So patriotism
means devotion to the people and the land (not government) in which you were
born. Nationalism is the devotion to the interests of a particular nation or
government including promoting the interests of one country over those of
others. Dissent does not mean resisting all authority(or education), it very
simply means to disagree. What I am dissenting against is the idea of
nationalism, which is the idea that one nation is superior to others.
Because as you pointed out, nationalism(+religion) is responsible for the
overwhelming majority of war and genocide throughout history. I realize that
extreme patriotism can be used as a tool to carry out a nationalist agenda,
but that is the very reason that I am anti-nationalistic. So that I can
continue to love the people while disagreeing with and speaking out against
the unjust actions of my government.

So my user name dissentispatriotic literally means that hating nationalism
or the actions of ones government does not equate to hating the people or
the land. Incidentally, being anti-nationalism is not the same as being an
anti-national. Anti-national means to be against ones nation and for
another. I am not for any other nation over my own, I just believe that we
are not intrinsically superior.

Here are some examples of the words “patriotism” and “nationalism” being
used in the proper context as well as a few that exemplify the idea of anti-
nationalism:

Nationalism is an infantile disease.  It is the measles of mankind.  ~Albert
Einstein, The World As I See It, 1934

Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when
hatred for people other than your own comes first.  ~Charles de Gaulle

I am not an Athenian or a Greek, I am a citizen of the world.  ~Socrates

It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the
rest of mankind.  ~Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity.
‘‘Patriotism’’ is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by
‘‘patriotism’’ I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above
humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest
in one’s own nation, which is the concern with the nation’s spiritual as
much as with its material welfare, never with its power over other nations.
Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not
love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is
not love, but idolatrous worship.”  Erich Fromm

dissentispatriotic, May 8 at 10:08 pm:
‘Anarcissie, May 8 at 9:17 pm

You clearly failed every single history exam that you ever encountered.  What else can I say????’

Well, since you don’t dissent from the authority of school or, apparently, that of the Established Order in general, probably not very much.  We’ve all been given the line long since, right? I guess I’m mildly curious about what you do dissent from.

Oh, and what’s so great about patriotism?  It seems to me worship of the patria in the form of the nation-state has generally brought about a lot of grief.  Like the major religions, it’s usually given as an excuse for killing somebody.  I mean, we all have our familial and tribal loyalties and connections, but the more abstract they become, the more they’re susceptible to being manipulated by clever thugs into support for their vicious activities, as I think even your authorized view of history makes plain.

“Ever heard the one about the guy who hated government until a deregulated Wall Street crashed, an oil spill devastated the Gulf of Mexico, a coal mine collapsed, and some good police work stopped a terrorist attack?”

Yeah, I heard that one.  Now the guy who hated government, loves big government, because he sees clearly now that if the government could have added about 10,000 pages of regulation to their system, all the above incidents could have been avoided.

And now he understands that if government could add about 100,000 pages of new regulation, we could keep all cars from crashing, avoid all airport delays, and keep solar activity from messing with our radio signals.

He has been thoroughly enlightened to the point of clearly seeing the direct correlation between government regulation and reduction of accidents, the declining morals of society, and attacks by our enemies.

The guy is researching the correlation to establish a level of regulation which would eliminate all risk and other adverse effects of a free society. 

While the results of the research are promising, they are far from complete.  Currently, he is convinced that 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 reams of regulation equates to 10.6 serious to moderate hazards avoided. 

Though doubling the regulation does not seem to double the avoidance factor of the serious to moderate risk, it more than doubles the avoidance of the almost to probably serious risk, so he is about 5 years away from establishing an optimum regulation level (in reams of paper) for each category of risk.  We anxiously await the result of his research.

Anarcissie, May 8 at 9:17 pm

You clearly failed every single history exam that you ever encountered.
What else can I say????

grandpaw, May 8 at 2:32 pm:
‘Socialized, i.e. regulated, capitalism:

People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?

We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. ...’

Historically, capitalism is a form or development of regulation.  Capitalism cannot exist without an elaborate property and class system and a fairly strong state to maintain it, regulate relations between capitalists, and discipline any individuals from the working class or the poor who might get out of hand.  The idea of the unfettered robber baron is a myth.  Many of the American examples, for instance, were grateful recipients of large swathes of government land (stolen from the Indians) which were supposed to induce them to build railroads.  It was like a license to print money.

grandpaw:

Mad love and respect for that last one. I am literally speechless.

Anarcissie:

By the way, the Civil Rights movement WAS intended to make the
government work for somebody. African Americans and other
marginalized minorities.

Anarcissie:

Do you know what the word “or” means? Try reading it
again sparky.

Well put, kudos.

Socialized, i.e. regulated, capitalism:

People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?

We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that largely unregulated capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.

It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society.

The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.

So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.

Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.

Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But only by socializing it have we been able to make its benefits available to the common man.  Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, a never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, IndyMac, Citibank, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, GMC to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.

It should be no surprise that neither unfettered capitalism nor too fettered socialism has worked very well, and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.

dissentispatriotic, May 7 at 10:17 pm:
’.... When people say “progressive change” they are usually referring to the process of making their government work for them again or of changing social injustice (civil rights, womens suffrage etc.).’

The Civil Rights movement was a movement against the government.  It was not to ‘make the government work’ for somebody; it was to force the government and the rest of the state to stop working, to stop upholding segregation and other racist policies.

there is a not so thin line between “big” and “competent”.  and another between “instrusive”
in our bedrooms and “vigilent” in the boardroom.

there is a grand canyon between government “waste and outright fraud” and “public service for the sake of
the common good”

what do these statements have in common? greed and power.

why else would mccain sell is soul to stay in office
another term?  why aren’t the aig and goldman execs
in jail beside bernie?  why isn’t the cheeeny gang
doing time for their messes?  money money money…........AND this has been systematically
going on for decades…..anyone paying attention?
that would be ah, no!

the manipulations of the corporatized msm,
and the chinese water torture brainwashing by
the right wing professionals are the base of the
wingnit anger toward the straw man enemy - a generic
GOVERNMENT. and they don’t even know what that means.

me, i see no hope of changing anything.  our government is already bought and paid for. the system gamed in their favor - the house always wins. and there will be no revolution coming to a town near you.  we are too afraid of losing what we are already clinging to and too lazy
to leave what little comforts we have to fight
a losing battle….....and to all the 2nd ammendment gun toting barny fifes out there
your stock pile of weapons and ammo, and the
one strapped to your leg won’t mean squat in
the real world of pollution, natual disasters,
and birth defects.

Hayfever:

I don’t know how you got the impression that conservatives are marginalized
when in fact here is the score: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton(Republican
Congress), Clinton(Republican Congress), Bush, Bush, Obama. The conservative
party has been in power five out of the last eight Presidential cycles and two
of the three instances in which they did not win the Presidency they
controlled the Congress. I do not accept the idea that a ruling class of
people can be marginalized, because even if they lose an election they still
have more wealth and power than most other groups.

The reason that many people are beginning to stigmatize the word conservative
is because of the Neo-Conservative movement, which I more than understand does
not reflect the values and feelings of the all conservatives. A small
constituency within your party has been in control of it for some time now and
their misleading de-regulatory slash and burn policies have become very
unpopular. Starting with programs under the Nixon administration like
Cointelpro (secret ops. spying on American citizens in the name of protecting
freedom), the scandal surrounding Watergate, on up to the preemptive war in
Iraq and deregulation of sub-prime mortgages that led to the latest economic
collapse.

I am not saying this to bash the average conservative as most of my family
identify themselves as conservative and I know that they are not bad people. I
am also not saying that the Democratic Party doesn’t face the same dynamic or
push unpopular policy or programs. But there is a fundamental difference in
basic ideologies between the parties which does not boil down to bigger or
smaller government. I have never known any politician who said give me a pay
reduction or less funding for my committees. Ultimately we pay about the same
tax rate either way. The big differences pertains to the governments role in
regulating private industry, privatization and the distribution of funds to
services which aid low income and disabled Americans. That is why some people
vote in a partisan manner. Not because they can’t see other candidates good
merits, but because they identify with one parties view or another on these
principals.

But if you really want better representation the answer may be a more parliamentary system which allows for more party choices and regulates how
much power any one party can wield. You could even have a Tolerant, Non-Bible-
beating, George W.-hating, Literate Conservative Party, although I would work
on the name.

amunaor:

When I emailed that link to all of my friends, many of whom are
organizers and true activists, the subject read: If this does not
make anti-war activists out of all of us, then I am ashamed of each
and every one of us.

I wonder what it would take to wake the sleeping giant to stop the
quiet unholy war we are waging. I think most Americans are basically
good and would not want to fund atrocities, but until more of us
start paying attention subversive elements of our government,
Blackwater, and the Dark Constellation will continue to commit
unthinkable deeds in our name.

TheBeerMaker:

The reason that so many people, not just liberals, fantasize about a
government that works for them is because that is the promise of
democracy. I know that you are skeptical because ours so rarely works for
us and that is reasonable. Although, to say that you believe in and
participate in democracy but that government is intrinsically ineffectual
is to say that you are ineffectual because the definition of democracy is
a government for and by it’s people.

You said that “the real problem is that the government is a socialist
institution; that is, the basic worker is not responsible nor accountable
for the outcomes of his/her actions”. I find this ironic because here we
are in this bastion of free market Capitalism. Socialism is an economic
system and not a form of government (Elective Monarchy, Theocracy,
Plutocracy, Dictatorship, Polyarchy, and Parliamentary Republic are types
of governments). A socialist economy is based on common need rather than
the individual need and as far as I can tell, in the US, individualism
rules the day. So, you are blaming an economic system, which we do not
implement, for our problems. The real problem is that we have become a
Capitalist Plutocracy meaning corporate non-elected entities often have
better representation than the people.

When people say “progressive change” they are usually referring to the
process of making their government work for them again or of changing
social injustice(civil rights, womens suffrage etc.). So to say “There is
no, absolutely no, reason to swim upstream against the current and make
progressive change” is to say that you are against Democracy, fairness,
and equal representation.

Hating, tolerating or loving government, and the state in general, depends on your view of human beings and your attitude towards coercing them, which is the function of the state.  Coercion is the inescapable central fact of the state, and that is why the power to initiate force is a monopoly of the government.  That is why the government has an army, a police force, spies, tax collectors, innumerable surveillance machines, prisons and so forth.

Apparently one must recite explicitly things I would think would be obvious: One is that if there is a social structure of coercion there will be a class system, because some will have power over others and they will seek to hold on to that power by allying with others of their kind.  Another is that if there is such a system, those who are rich and powerful—or at least able and aggressive—will fight their way to the top of it by any means available.  A third is that states, being led by such people, will tend to fight one another when their leaders think they can get away with it, because the logic of the state—that some should control others—leads directly to war, repression and imperialism.

What the theory tells us is exactly what we observe.

No matter how you feel about the government, it is delusional to say that it is supposed to be a benevolent instrument, designed to protect the weak from the strong.  It is designed to protect the strong from one another and to facilitate their exploitation of the weak.  If it were benevolent, it would be unnecessary for it to rest on force and the threat of force.  If it were egalitarian, it would not be the domain of the powerful and wealthy and those who serve them. 

I suggest that people come to grips with the reality of the state and its works, and proceed from there.  Indulgence in delusion will lead only to disappointment and disaster.  Further disappointment and disaster.

“The central tasks of democratic government, after all, typically involve standing up for the many against the few, the less powerful against the more powerful.”

When was the last time our government worked that way? Our Corporate State has lost all pretense of being either democratic or benign. I wish otherwise, but I no longer believe it will allow reform.

The ghost lurking behind all the nonsense about the “the government that governs least’ idea is Thomas Jefferson.  Admirable as he was in his peculiarly effete way, he is an odd choice for political hero in 21st Century America.  He was personally improvident, dying millions in debt because he squandered multi-millions in trying to recreate a decadent French aristocratic life style.  He inherited land and slaves.  So whatever he had was produced by them, he even used the people he owned for sex.  His talk about limited government was totally hypocritical.  He helped shape a government that would exclusively serve him and his kind.  He concocted patent laws in order to protect his “inventions” which he desperately hoped would get him cash.  He enacted laws which armed exclusively white militias in order to forestall slave revolts.  He used tax-payers money to buy French America so plantation owners like himself could enlarge their holdings.  On the other hand, Jefferson was totally against the government doing anything on behalf of   workers, small-holders or city dwellers simply because they did not live on self contained slave plantations as he did which he thought was the model of American life.

Modern day Americans who claim to espouse Jeffersonian principles are as hypocritically out-dated and ridiculous as their hero.

Thanks dissentispatriotic!

Just trying to keep this very important issue on the front burner.

Meanwhile, MSM continues to remain MUM; which too me, lends the appearance of their own complicity to murder and coverup! Neither does it seem to be turning any heads within the ring of power.

As that pile of dead bastards continues to grow, over there; out of sight, out of mind, they have no choice but to continue shoring up the original lie, which, at some point; from its own weight, will cave in on itself!

Eventually, the hounds from hell will bite them all in the ass for ignoring simmering cauldron!

Here is another good link, with related matters to the diabolical incident:

http://www.democracynow.org/tags/wikileaks_collateral_murder_video

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Amunaor:

I have been including the wikilinks link that I took from one of
your posts and sharing it with everyone that I can. Thank you for
finding and posting it.

Paul_GA:

I would like to comment on your post as it follows:

“So what’s to like about government? Sure, it can do some things right,
every now and then, but a broken clock, as the old saw goes, is right twice
a day.

Like Thoreau, I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which
governs least”. As a minarchist, I’m not yet willing to go as far as Thoreau
did and aver that “That government is best which governs not at all”; but
surely this country could use a much weaker and less centralized national
government. After all, such a government would have a much harder time
hoodwinking the populace into stupid, wasteful wars like those in Iraq and
Afghanistan ... and keeping them there, when sheer common sense dictates
that those wars must end, and this country must repudiate imperialism,
interventionism and aggressive “pre-emptive” war”.

Thoreau was a poet and author, and a damn fine one. But he was not a
political analyst. The idea that a people could have a tiny government
without governance is ridiculous. And when we’re shrinking down that old
government where do we stop? Schools, libraries, fire departments, Transportation Departments, NOAA, police departments, agencies that regulate
food safety? And I think the Bush administration demonstrated amply what
deregulation and “small government” leads to. The wild wild west. That type
of survival of the fittest mentality is dangerous because it abandons
compassion and reason.

The populace is not hoodwinked into war because we have a government. We get
hoodwinked because we let corporate interest buy our government through the
interest laden debt borrowed from the privately owned federal reserve and
conservative driven privatization schemes. Also we did not heed Eisenhower’s
warning about dismantling the military industrial complex after WWII and now
“national defense” is big business that sustains our economy. It now
represents about half of every dollar we pay in taxes. So if you want to
shrink government get out there and actually join the anti-war movement.

I agree and disagree with your final statement. I agree that preemptive war
is morally reprehensible and a crime against humanity and any perpetrators
of it should be charged accordingly. But it was free market small-government
promoting entity, that is now profiting greatly, who used the preemptive
model last in 2001. I agree that we are an imperialist nation, but the
corporate interests are the empire and our government is the republic. The
difference being that we at least get some say in who governs us. But I
never remember having a chance to vote out that asshole Alen Greenspan or
having a choice in who heads the world bank.(which is really just a
glorified predatory pay day lending institution) Those things are done
behind closed doors.

I disagree though that the US does not have a role to play in
interventionism. Our government’s other major role is to represent us the
people in the international community. I remember seeing the footage of an
AIDS plagued community in Namibia dancing in the street waving American
flags when US aid provided the resources to buy life saving anti-retro-viral
drugs for the entire community. No man is an island and neither is the US.
We have great privilege which dictates a duty to intervene on behalf of the defenseless. In fact if we had devoted just 1/10 of our national defense
budget on debt and humanitarian relief all over the world it would do more
for peace and national security than any number of Apache attack helicopters
ever could.

You will never get out of paying your taxes. And you will pay about the same
rate no matter which party is in power. The best you can do is to be an
active advocate for how that money is spent. Ironically though the “small
government” puppets, which you likely support, will not make it smaller or
stay out of wars because neither profits them.

EJ, where in the Constitution does it state that the US Federal government “..... involve[s] standing up for the many against the few, the less powerful against the more powerful.”?

Why do so many liberals still fantasize that the government can/should/will make the difference in our lives that so many are looking for?  I have worked along side the federal government for almost 30 years.  I was absolutely enthralled with VP Gore’s idea about re-inventing government and worked with agencies to try an realize it (focusing on the DoD).  The goals were lofty, the words were instructive, the commitment was…lukewarm.  But the real problem is that the government is a socialist institution; that is, the basic worker is not responsible nor accountable for the outcomes of his/her actions.  They all get the same rewards (I know, there are the occasional atta-boys)and no one receives the axe when required.  There is no, absolutely no, reason to swim upstream against the current and make progressive change.

so why would you, after all these years of ineffective governments both Dem and Repub, believe that anything will change?  Please let me know so I can seek out those agencies to work with.  Oh wait, there is one.  We can start and f* up more wars than most any other nation on earth.  I guess that’s where we really excel.

Pitiful.  Just pitiful.

Dionne doesn’t seem to realize that progressives are not T-bangers, we don’t hate ALL government.  Only the current U.S. government which as many of the other comments point out is nothing but bought and sold political shills for corporate rule.  What we hate is the hypocrisy of Presidents who say one thing to get elected then take actions that betray the people who voted for them.  We hate the Congress that gives us nothing but lies and war while facilitating the rape of the poor and middle class by their corporate and financial masters.  We hate the Supreme Corporate that defends only property rights while making a mockery of justice and human rights.  We would love a government that truly protected and defended ordinary Americans from the predatory criminals that run the country (and world) but it sure isn’t going to happen with THE GOVERNMENT THAT CURRENTLY IS IN POWER.

Every single U.S. governmental and corporate entity
lives and breathes for one purpose only. That is to
funnel wealth to the top and to preserve U.S.
economic, and therefore, military superiority. Thomas
Freedman wrote “The hidden hand of the market cannot
exist without the hidden fist. McDonalds cannot
thrive without McDonald Douglas”. And surly without
both military and economic superiority we could not
have pushed Free Trade Agreements, unpopular labor
reforms in poorer nations or international predatory
lending and structural readjustments. The political
pendulum swings right and left. It keeps us arguing
about a few wedge issues who’s constitutional
definitions have been well defined for decades. Only
the policies surrounding them change and even those
changes are marginal.

Here is the perfect example. Halliburton is the
company that got the exclusive bid contract to
rebuild the destruction we are causing in Iraq and
for whom Dick Cheney was CEO. It is also the
contractor responsible for the “rig cementing” on the
BP Deepwater Horizon that is now gushing hundreds of
thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of
Mexico. Their work on the rig was completed just 20
hours before the blowout. Guess what. Poor rig
cementing is the most common cause of rig blowout.

Hey, anybody seen our nation’s soul. I can’t seem to
find it. Oh, there
it is floating in the Gulf of Mexico covered in
hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil.
Amazing how so many bitter political rivals are all
sharing the same revolving door. I mean why would the
oh so liberal Obama administration support off-shore
drilling? And will they still be doing lucrative
business with an oh so conservative and evil company
like KBR (Halliburton) if they are responsible for
the spill? Of course. Because they are all playing
for the same team.

Most of us usually look the other way because we are
implicit, comfortable and pacified. But also because
the “rugged individualist” and “us against them”
ideologies are ingrained deeply into the American
experience. We have always been taught to hate one
group of people or another. Separating us from any
sense of world community or real cultural identity,
other than that of the capitalist culture, creates a
system which allows us all to contribute to the
exploitation of people in our ancestors countries of
origin, and all over the world, without protest. It
allows us to say things like, “developing nation”
rather than admitting that we are exploiting people
and hording resources.
Natural resources, and therefore monetary wealth, are
finite. That’s why the “developing” nations never
graduate to “first world” status.

The most beautiful thing about the US political
system is that the mechanisms are in place that can
execute the people’s will. Unfortunately the moment
that the people’s government gave up the autonomy of
our currency and started borrowing money with
interest from the privately owned Federal Reserve,
that process was high-jacked. Corporate and
government entities were joined as one in the unholy
bonds of plutocracy, the people’s will became weak
and New World Order is slowly taking hold. But we are
not powerless. The ability to control our own
destinies is still ours. And changing peoples hearts
and minds is possible.

The entire capitalist system though is bound to fall
eventually because it is built on an unsustainable
principal; dividends that increase on a graduated
scale… forever. Common sense dictates that finite
resources cannot grow by significant annual margins
into eternity. Inevitably all of the evil that has
been done in the name of profit under the guise of
democracy will come back for it’s due.

Now wasn’t that was a nice bedtime story?

This link is not for the faint.
“Just look at that pile of dead bastards over there”
WikiLeaks—Collateral Murder
http://wikileaks.org/

Every single U.S. governmental and corporate entity lives and breathes for one
purpose only. That is to funnel wealth to the top and to preserve U.S.
economic, and therefore, military superiority. Thomas Freedman wrote “The
hidden hand of the market cannot exist without the hidden fist. McDonalds
cannot thrive without McDonald Douglas”. And surly without both military and
economic superiority we could not have pushed Free Trade Agreements, unpopular
labor reforms in poorer nations or international predatory lending and
structural readjustments. The political pendulum swings right and left. It
keeps us arguing about a few wedge issues who’s constitutional definitions have
been well defined for decades. Only the policies surrounding them change and
even those changes are marginal.

Here is the perfect example. Halliburton is the company that got the exclusive
bid contract to rebuild the destruction we are causing in Iraq and for whom
Dick Cheney was CEO. It is also the contractor responsible for the “rig
cementing” on the BP Deepwater Horizon that is now gushing hundreds of
thousands of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Their work on the
rig was completed just 20 hours before the blowout. Guess what. Poor rig
cementing is the most common cause of rig blowout.

Hey, anybody seen our nation’s soul. I can’t seem to find it. Oh, there
it is floating in the Gulf of Mexico covered in hundreds of thousands of
gallons of crude oil. Amazing how so many bitter political rivals are all
sharing the same revolving door. I mean why would the oh so liberal Obama
administration support off-shore drilling? And will they still be doing
lucrative business with an oh so conservative and evil company like KBR
(Halliburton) if they are responsible for the spill? Of course. Because they
are all playing for the same team.

Most of us usually look the other way because we are implicit, comfortable and
pacified. But also because the “rugged individualist” and “us against them”
ideologies are ingrained deeply into the American experience. We have always
been taught to hate one group of people or another. Separating us from any
sense of world community or real cultural identity, other than that of the
capitalist culture, creates a system which allows us all to contribute to the
exploitation of people in our ancestors countries of origin, and all over the
world, without protest. It allows us to say things like, “developing nation”
rather than admitting that we are exploiting people and hording resources.
Natural resources, and therefore monetary wealth, are finite. That’s why the
“developing” nations never graduate to “first world” status.

The most beautiful thing about the US political system is that the mechanisms
are in place that can execute the people’s will. Unfortunately the moment that
the people’s government gave up the autonomy of our currency and started
borrowing money with interest from the privately owned Federal Reserve, that
process was high-jacked. Corporate and government entities were joined as one
in the unholy bonds of plutocracy, the people’s will became weak and New World
Order is slowly taking hold. But we are not powerless. The ability to control
our own destinies is still ours. And changing peoples hearts and minds is
possible.

The entire capitalist system though is bound to fall eventually because it is
built on an unsustainable principal; dividends that increase on a graduated
scale… forever. Common sense dictates that finite resources cannot grow by
significant annual margins into eternity. Inevitably all of the evil that has
been done in the name of profit under the guise of democracy will come back for
it’s due.

Now wasn’t that was a nice bedtime story?

This link is not for the faint.
“Just look at that pile of dead bastards over there”
WikiLeaks—Collateral Murder
http://wikileaks.org/

“Capital”... in the political field is analogous to
“The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of
government or of authority, and the theological idea
of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in
various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to
attacking all of them . . . What capital does to
labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to
the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful
in practice as it is in philosophy. The most
effective means for oppressing the people would be
simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its
reason.”

“To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied
upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated,
enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled,
checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom
nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at
every operation, at every transaction noted,
registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished,
prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.
It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the
name of the general interest, to be placed under
contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited,
monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed;
then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of
complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified,
harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed,
bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot,
deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown
all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged,
dishonoured. That is government; that is it’s
justice; that is it’s morality!”

(Pierre-Joseph Proudhon)

Facts?  The GOP and friends makes them up as they go along. Although when it comes to Bondage clubs and rentboy.com they seem to especially rise to the occassion.
 
.

We have a problem:  Government is supposed to care about people.  Corporate capitalism is NOT supposed to care about people; only profits.
  Questions: 1. When government tries to care about people (example: health care) corporations fight it.
What can one reasonably expect under such conditions?
  2. Politicians elected by the people are supposed to care about the people who elected them.
But politicians need money for their campaigns and people don’t have money. Corporations have money to
give to politicians (in exchange for benefits). What can one reasonably expect under such conditions?
  Furthermore—Neither governments nor corporations “like” people except when they can exploit or use them. They both talk about “serving” the public”, but that’s just PR.  What can one reasonably expect under such conditions?
  Is it truly a question of “like” or “hate”?  I doubt it.  Something else is lurking in the background—the deeply shocking results of wars, weapons of mass destruction, mass starvation, grinding poverty, senseless exploitation and polluting of the earth, greed, fear, loss of hope and faith—all have played a part in the current malaise. When we stop to think about the people we have helped to kill, we don’t even like ourselves very much! That’s a sure sign we are beginning to understand the roots of the problem.
  Give it time.  Just remember—any more “bad” adds to the already “bad.”  Anything “good” offers a reprieve from disaster.
              Do good.
    (with a rose tossed to Garrison Keillor)

“Government-hating” is merely a political script that Reagan’s handlers invented to get him elected.  If he had believed that “government IS the problem” crap, he would never have increased GOVT spending on defense.  In fact, just about EVERYthing that politicians and handlers dream up is pure fiction. 
 
Any experienced salesman can tell you that the easiest thing to sell is fear - fear of what might happen, fear of might not happen, fear of being afraid itself.  Politicians are just salesmen minus the plaid Herb Tarlek jackets. 

Someday a politician .... or maybe Frank Luntz ... will determine that government-liking is back in style, sell the concept, and everybody will see the big pendulum in the sky swing the other direction.

Government and private industry are designed to serve different wants and needs. It’s not rocket science. Unfortunately, with those famously shallow words spoken by Saint Ronney: “government is the problem not the solution,” the private sector was de facto given license to intrude in every aspect of our lives when, the fact is, it doesn’t belong in some places any more than does government.

AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and why citizens ARE the government. If Americans really cared about “big government, malfeasance, too-large-a-military, etc. they would get involved, vote and campaign against those things. Instead, they have given power to the private sector under the mistaken notion that “capitalism/the private sector/the market gives a lick about them. Newsflash: private concerns aren’t designed to “care.” They are only about profit.

Just because false presidents such as GWB was an incompetent (and worse) and his government was poorly run does not mean government is, by its nature, wrong any more than one bad executive/owner is reflective of all businesses.

It’s long over-due that Americans start embracing the idea that there are a number of different social and economic solutions to our challenges. It doesn’t have to be so difficult.

Everyone’s blaming republicans but there’s hardly a difference.  It was Obama, a
liberal, who extended the war into Afghanistan.  It was Obama who ordered drone
attacks on Palestine in his first days in office.  It was Obama who continued with
the gigantic bank bail outs.  And need I say Obama who’s trying to end the
twenty-seven year moratorium on off-shore drilling?  I don’t see what you guys
are getting at when you try to distinguish between Democrats and Republicansm-
—except nowhere. They’re all the same species.  Nothing but a bunch of reptiles
from another planet.  They don’t have the guts to do what it will take to save the
human race.

Some never wake from their delusions, nor do they understand that fairy tales, are pretty dreams meant to hid the unpleasant reality of the world they live in.

People having psychotic breaks are prone to making up pleasant realities that they live in, often these grandiose castles in the sky, exist despite the best efforts of all those around them to bring them back to earth. The can be rationalised infinitly because they are not based on fact, not based on reality or on observation.

Take a deap breath, E.J., and look in the mirror, and say aloud 10 times, there is no difference between the government and the corporations.

The government and the plutocracy are the same. And if we have any semblance of order, any belief that we have any protection from the corporations, then it is only because we don’t question our beliefs, and have a dificulty with reality testing.

Yes there will be minimal reforms, yes there will be minimal, mob satisfying actions by the plutocracy, carefully designed, and planned to massage the public’s beasts, and help them go back to sleep.

But the fundamental problem will never be addressed, and this is why, 5, 10, 15 years from now, this country will be gone. Namely, that we live in a plutocratic state, and there is no difference between the government, and the corporations.  They are both the same, and they are one, and they are both incompetant, greedy, mendacious. 

To believe in them is to, experience a form of symbolic transference, like believing that the actors in a play are real, and that the theater the play is performed in is real.

Waking up is hard to do.

Flummox, May 6 at 2:45 pm #

The level of cognitive dissonance is literally incomprehensible. It’s more of a psychological marvel than a political movement.
****************************************

Hypocrisy in humans is no miracle.  But you are right on otherwise.

RE: Dionne—Starting with the newly urgent threat of domestic terrorism and the environmental disaster in the Gulf…
***

Which domestic terrorism are you refering too Dionne; the one in the gulf or the slaughter over there?

“Just look at that pile of dead bastards over there”

WikiLeaks—Collateral Murder
http://wikileaks.org/

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Jindal’s hypocrisy goes back a few months to when he spoke out against the job stimulus (as underfunded as it was)  but showed up at a job creating event in Lousiana with a big government check, as if he had something to do with bringing in those funds.

President Obama, seize this opportunity!

I would like to see President Obama seize this opportunity by making an Oval Office address in defense of government’s essential role in safeguarding the public good and ensuring that we have capitalism with a social conscience.

Dionne writes, “Rather, most of them arose from the government’s failure to do its
job in the first place.”

Dionne just doesn’t get it: government almost always fails to do its job in the first
place.  Does he think this is gonna change?

The poster who observed that Dionne writes the same article over and over again
is absolutely right.  I’m tired of reading this guy’s stuff so I’ll be exercising the
power to not click.

Hating government is an extremely destructive force that the right has manipulated to its - and its corporation’s - ends and benefits.

We need strong government to make sure that America takes care of all of her people, to take care of and to educate.

Government needs to be built back up from the destruction raged on it during the past 30 years, it needs to come back, in order for America to remain a democracy.

What really gets me is that these same guys who hate government and think it’s overreaching and want a smaller government are the very same people who think the government should be able to assassinate American citizens without trial, torture captives and hold people indefinitely, even when they are perfectly innocent.

The very worst of governmental abuse of power is just fine, but how dare they attempt to make healthcare more affordable. Higher taxes for the rich are worse than opening the door to the practices of the very worst of totalitarian regimes.

The level of cognitive dissonance is literally incomprehensible. It’s more of a psychological marvel than a political movement.

it is the republicans who are obstructing and blocking every single attempt at
progress. no govt could operate properly under these circumstances,
As I have said, they are traitors and should be treated as such!

Guess it must be kind of tough to run an effective govt when you have a bunch of
vile, self-serving republicans ready to denigrate everything you try to do at every
turn, regardless of what it is.
the repugs have always blocked this country from moving forward, and continue
to do so today

They are total a-holes and so is anyone who believes their mean-spirited hate
mongering does any good for anyone.
Humph.

HAMMERING: You’re right—!! The revolving door corporate thugs who control committes that enforce law should be spotlighted by the liberal sniveler press. Instead we get the emotional kneejerk. The other main issue is campaign finance reform. As far as government goes, ours is “—-by the people and for the people—”.  Isn’t it obvious, they’re us.

Begging your pardon, Hammering, but I’m not a conservative; I’m more or less a libertarian (more or less because I’m not an LP member). Remember, I described myself in my initial posting as a minarchist; that means I’m very different in my ideas from those foolish “tea-partiers” who decry “big government” in one breath, and then in the other express themselves as pro-war and pro-Israel. My problem with “big government” is its love of war, its entangling alliances, its hypocrisy, and its uncaring attitude towards the people whose allegiance it claims (anything “we the people” get is in the nature of table scraps thrown to the family pets to shut them up).

How much government does this country need? I believe it needs a lot less, if only to break Mordor-on-the-Potomac’s chickenhawkish militarism and centralization of power and to end the military-industrial complex. I also believe that if we don’t reduce the government in size and end the MIC ourselves, the forces of history and economics will do it for us—and if those impersonal forces do it, with no attempt at controlling them other than vain attempts to stop them, the end result will be messy and violent for everyone concerned as the Empire comes apart. Remember, all empires fall; none last forever.

So with all respect, Hammering, please don’t consider me a “conservative”. I don’t fit easily into any convenient category. Heck, I tend to vote Libertarian, but if Cynthia McKinney had been on the Georgia state ballot in 2008, I’d have voted Green.

Very well put Mr. Dionne just left out the fact that corporations have been allowed to riddle gov’t and to take over functions of gov’t from us. To the point to where if they were removed today our gov’t would fall apart tomorrow.

He also left out the part about active and passive sabotage by those same anti-gov’t forces to make sure it fails.

DaveZx3

Dave writes “With the millions of laws on the books,
and with the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and
elected officials at every level and with the
billions of tax dollars collected, government fails
to do its job”

If by “do its job” you mean do the work of the people
then I would point you to the last administration
which was in power for eight years. their aim was to
break government and move as much of governments jobs
into the private sector where the costs are higher
and the level of competence is even less. Government
works just fine when it is allowed to “do its job”
without interference from industry interests and
incompetent appointees, i.e. great job brownie.

Dave writes “Public sector employees earn 30% more
than private sector, according to one report, yet
they fail to do their job on too many fronts, and on
too many occasions”.

Public sector jobs earn up to 30% more not because
they are just given more money than they should
receive to do those jobs but because those jobs have
kept up with inflation while private sector jobs have
been systematically held back since Reagan made greed
a family value.

Further Much of government works just fine it is only
when agencies are turned over to the industries they
are supposed to oversee or an incompetent is
installed by conservatives so they can later point to
it and claim government is broken that a problem develops.

Dave writes ” We have the FBI, the CIA, the DHS and
the Armed Forces, yet some guy just drives a car into
Times Square, which could have just as easily had a
suitcase nuke in it.  And the plot was foiled because
of the stupidity of the perpetrator not the
excellence of the government”.

First of all, no government can protect everyone from
some crazy individual who wants to hurt people. The
fact that the individual was apprehended before he
could flee the country points to the competence of
our intelligence agencies not their incompetence.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a suitcase nuke.
The amount of explosives required to trigger a nuclear event will never fit in a suitcase. Further
nuclear bombs are extremely hard to build correctly
it is highly unlikely that any non governmental group
will ever have enough resources to build one on their
own.

Lastly, I would point out that all perpetrators of
these kind of attacks have to be a little stupid to
begin with otherwise they would not think it was a
good idea to hurt innocent people. I will agree with
you that based on what we know as of now this
particular individual seems to be dumber than most.

“Don’t trust the government” is a rant rather than a rational or reasoned statement.  When one hears these kind of absolutist statements, the response should be to ask for specific examples.  The examples will cover no more than an infinitesimal part of what the government does.  It’s not unlike statements such as “Don’t trust Muslims because they are terrorists” or “don’t trust illegal immigrants because they come here to commit crimes”.  Or “that’s the way all niggers are”. 

For example, not even anarchists test the safety of their food and drugs. 

Absolutist statements such as “don’t trust the government” is a way of saying “I don’t want to have to provide support for what I rant”.

Paul_GA

You Quote Thoreau’s “That government is best which
governs least” Surly you must understand that Thoreau
was speaking about Government intrusion into personal
lives and not the regulatory actions of the
Government.

I have seen it over and over again. Conservatives cry
that Government can not do anything right then when
the get in power they appoint incompetents or
industry insiders to positions of power then point to
those agencies as proof that Government is broken.

This is just not true. You will drive your very safe
car today, not because of free enterprise or the free
market but because the Government dragged the
automakers kicking and screaming through regulation
to build safer cars.

The same can be said about safe food, safe drugs,
clean environment, etc. The reason that these
agencies are not working well today is not because
government is inept but because people have been put
in charge of these agencies who are more interested
in protecting industry than people. Replace these
people with competent bureaucrats and watch
Government work.

The proper role of Government is not to decide who
can sleep with whom or whether a woman must carry a
pregnancy to term or who can marry whom.

The proper role of Government is to protect the
Golden Rule. That is to keep “do unto others as you
would have them do unto you” from becoming “he who
has all the gold makes the rules”.

E. J. Dionne’s job is to set up a false contest between “progressives” who are supposed to love government and “conservatives” who are supposed to hate government (but not really), thus excluding anarchists and libertarians who actually don’t think government is a very good idea—an idea Dionne obviously finds dangerous—from apparent existence.  I don’t know how long people are going to go on buying this kind of conventionalized blather, or what it’s doing here.  I guess it’s more of Truthdig’s mission to hold Washington Post writers up to ridicule.

So what’s to like about government? Sure, it can do some things right, every now and then, but a broken clock, as the old saw goes, is right twice a day.

Like Thoreau, I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”. As a minarchist, I’m not yet willing to go as far as Thoreau did and aver that “That government is best which governs not at all”; but surely this country could use a much weaker and less centralized national government. After all, such a government would have a much harder time hoodwinking the populace into stupid, wasteful wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan ... and keeping them there, when sheer common sense dictates that those wars must end, and this country must repudiate imperialism, interventionism and aggressive “pre-emptive” war.

Hey folks, go easy on Dionne. It can’t be pleasant
writing the same article over and over, always having
to struggle to manipulate two or three top news stories
so that they seem to prove your point. Hall monitors
have feelings too.

I agree with her.  We shouldn’t only hate the government.  We should hate
corporations as well and even more so.  And furthermore, we should hate
ourselves for not having the guts to do anything about the whole mess.  The only
thing we do is vote every couple years and then sit back and watch like a bunch of
dumbstruck spectators.  Instead we should be following in the example of the
denizens of Greece or Thailand and abolishing the government.  At least the Tea
Party has that going for them.  They’re not just sitting on their lazy asses in front
of the T.V. screen, they’re out doing something.  But they’re too focused on the
government.  It’s been said that the government is only the shadow.  Corporations
are the substance.  If you want anything to get done you attack the substance not
the shadow.  And yadda yadda ya..

Just another lament by dionne; while leaving out the fact that people who own america, run america.
Lamentation wld not change this fact. Accurate-adequate description of what and why it goes on, might. Or, at least, it wld help!
But, one wld never get this from individuals running media.
What wld change this fact wld be not to allow individuals to own what’s underground and undersea.
And, of course, the constitution, congress, media, WH, judiciary, army, cia.

Or, to be even shorter, abolish in toto present lawlessness, ‘regulations’, and ‘deregulation’ in US.
tnx

In many instance the ideas behind government policies are noble and just. The problem is that in our complex society there are always unintended consequences that result from new rules, laws, policies, etc. These unintended consequences create more problems than the initial rule change usually fixes. I also think it’s a stretch to say that government stopped the bombing in Times Square. It looked more like incompetence on the part of the wanna be terrorist (and that"s a good thing for us). It’s obvious that most of these radical factions are really stupid otherwise we would probably have more problems with them than we currently do (these idiots operate on religion not science). Free markets DO work better than government. If the gov. had not bailed out wall street, some companies would have failed, but other companies would have risen to take thier place (of course Goldman advisors would argue differently due to self interests). Sure there would be short term pain, but didn’t we have short term pain anyway by bailing out the banks? Now a moral hazard is created, those entities that know they are too big to fail know they can take on even more risk without fear of loss because they are backstopped by the taxpayer. If we truely had free markets things would work great. Problem is we haven’t had true free markets since federal and state pensions started investing in the markets (actually even before that). Now that these pensions have lost vast sums of money, they are trying to play catch up by making the same mistakes. Now if that isn’t stupid i don’t know what is. Same thing holds true in real estate. if the government would move out of the way, prices would adjust to the price level were the supply would attract a demand. Problem isn’t interest rates, the problem is that prices are still way too high for the market to bear.

Dionne’s best comment, “...progressives who insist on government’s constructive role can’t succeed unless they persuade voters that public agencies are up to the missions they undertake.”

In my view that will be an impossible task.

Cry foul of government regulation. Cry, “where is the government now?”

It’s quite obvious that much of the anti-government is funded, applauded, promulgated and intensified by the interests whose profit motives would be impinged, not to mention the back-door dealings in Congress that confound the will of the electorate.

Dionne writes, “Rather, most of them arose from the government’s failure to do its job in the first place.”

My disgust with government is not unwarranted. 

With the millions of laws on the books, and with the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats and elected officials at every level and with the billions of tax dollars collected, government fails to do its job, according to Dionne, and he is, on the whole, correct. 

Public sector employees earn 30% more than private sector, according to one report, yet they fail to do their job on too many fronts, and on too many occasions. 

Almost every bureaucrat today is a politician, and the work is about the war between conservatives and progressives.  It is getting sickening watching these two factions beating each other to death with no regard for the citizens who elect them.  And the war behind the war is that between the godly and the ungodly, and this is where the fervor comes from.  Neither side will budge on this basic issue. 

But both sides are so involved with their ideology that they have no time for anything else.  They seem to be totally unaccountable to the idea of doing a competent job of carrying out the will of the electorate. 

We have the FBI, the CIA, the DHS and the Armed Forces, yet some guy just drives a car into Times Square, which could have just as easily had a suitcase nuke in it.  And the plot was foiled because of the stupidity of the perpetrator not the excellence of the government. 

It is only a matter of time until some terrorist gets it right, and an act of war 100 times more deadly than 9/11 occurs.  We spend billions on defense, yet we are defenseless.  Why?  Because of incompetence of government. 

Government seems to exhibit one of those paradoxes of human endeavor, in that the bigger it gets the more unresponsive, bloated and ineffective it often becomes.  The same thing happens in the corporate world on too many occasions. 

That is why I am fed up with government. I am sick of paying these people big bucks to do nothing but screw things up. 

The country and the world would not be in such a bad state if governments were comprised of competent public servants and not self-serving, ideological weasels, who sell out to the big money, global elite who believe themselves to be above the law and above any government of, by and for the people.

If these dirt-bags weren’t so successful at polarizing the people, there would be far more revolutions going on.  But due to their success in dividing us up, we fight amongst each other, while these elitists murder and steal with no remorse. 

Why do our elected and appointed officials attend secret meetings of the Bilderbergers and others?  Why is this not an issue?  What purpose does this serve, these secret elitist organizations that the people we pay have to attend them, without telling us why?

EJ:

Good points but you missed the most OBVIOUS hypocrite in this: Gov. Bobby Jindal, who is a near-tea-partier, always on about “States’ Rights” and “De-regulation” and getting the Feds out of influence in Louisiana.

Until now.  When his state faces an economic hit that will make Katrina seem like nothing.

Meanwhile, the truly nutty right is alternately blaming Obama and at the same time pooh-poohing the environmental issues!  Total irrationality in the face of facts.