The Ongoing Dispute — Government (Socialism) vs. Free Enterprise (Capitalism) — America’s Real “Ism” Schism
The Ongoing Dispute — Government (Socialism) vs. Free Enterprise (Capitalism) — America’s Real “Ism” Schism
By
Ken Eliasberg
Below the surface of every political dispute thrust upon this country is the central and fundamental issue that divides and defines the Parties — capitalism vs. socialism, free enterprise vs. the welfare (or nanny) state. No matter what the issue of the day might appear to be — e.g. health care, cap and trade, stimulus, card check, etc. — the underlying issue is really all about the role government is to play in our lives. This is quite simply the case — all else is window dressing. And never, in my opinion, has that been more clear than it is today; the stimulus legislation was not really about the economy, the cap-and-trade proposal is not really about the environment, and Obama’s health care proposal is not really about health care. What then are they really about?? As I have previously suggested and now aver, each and all of these measures are first and foremost about consolidating more and more power in the hands of the Federal government, i.e. central planning; completion of the circle started by the New Deal, advanced by The Great Society, and even advanced, advertently or inadvertently, by the most recent Bush Administration. That being the case — and I strongly submit that it is — it behooves us to
take a good look at how well government has fared whenever and wherever it was the system in control.
My feelings about government are very clear — it is a necessary evil in that there are duties that it must perform that seem more suitable to a public endeavor (and this assertion is open to serious question in many cases). My reason for this sentiment has been beautifully summed up in a wonderful statement by Milton Friedman, which reads as follows:
When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very
careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends
his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful how
much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends
someone else’s money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about
what he buys, but doesn’t care at all how much he spends. And, when a man
spends someone else’s money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much
he spends or what he spends it on. And that’s government for you.
Milton Friedman — May 9, 2002
I cannot imagine a statement that more perfectly captures my sentiment about government. That said, I not only recognize the need for it, but I have served in it in several capacities, thoroughly enjoyed my stay in each, and profited immensely from the training I received. Indeed, I wholeheartedly recommend government service for at least 2 reasons: (1) there are not many places in which you can secure a better apprenticehip, and (2) the profound hope that we shall so improve government service as to be able to attract and retain the best and brightest of our youth. Alright, then, let’s take a look at government.
Before providing my reasons for having a somewhat skeptical view of government, I’d like to call upon you to take your own experience with government into account. That is, I find in these discussions — which invariably produce more heat than light — that the individual speeds quickly to the theoretical, while never addressing his own reality. That is, whenever we discuss “government,” it takes on an abstract coloration, and almost never takes into account the person’s personal experience with government. Somehow, the left-winger never wants you to look at the reality of government — what it is, what it can do, what it should, and, more to the point, what it has done. Specifically, what has been his or your own personal experience with government. How were his or your dealings with the DMV, the IRS, the INS, the Post Office, etc, etc.? Somehow this aspect of the situation — i.e. the operative reality — is either discounted, dismissed, or disappears in its entirety. So please, do not, in addressing the fundamental question of the desired role of government in your life, fail to take into consideration your own personal experience with government. Do not as the left always does, skip quickly past this to address some utopian vision of what government could, should, or might do or be — just slow down the discussion, or even walk it back, and start with the simple question of what it has done for and with you, i.e. what has been your personal experience on those occasions when you have interacted with it.??
In an interesting and insightful article in the American Thinker on 8/15/09 entitled A Fundamental Disconnect, Ron Lipsman presents this paradox in the following manner:
“Hollywood and the media routinely offer up two standard portrayals of
government officials — inept and comical idiots or sinister characters. The latter is
especially true of media depictions of NSA, CIA, and FBI employees, but both
are quite typical of the reigning liberal elite’s opinion of government agencies and
their employees: bureaucrats are either hilarious nincompoops or dangerous evil-
doers, and amazingly enough, sometimes both at once. Hollywood seems to think
that the government is either screwing up the country because it doesn’t know
what it is doing or it is destroying the country because it is trampling on the rights
of its citizens.
However, the people who hold these convictions are the exact same people who
want to turn over the operation of all the key components of the country to the
government to manage. Health care, energy, education, the economy itself - -
these and dozens of other critical features of American society should be directed,
according to the Left, from the hallowed halls in which the bumblers and betrayers
work.
These liberal elites, who are now in positions of great power in the nation, seem to
believe that the politicians and bureaucrats who populate the federal government,
are on the one hand part fumbling meatheads who can’t tie their shoes and part
evil plotters who want to screw John Q. Public. At the same time the left believes
that those who run the bureaucracy should be entrusted with the management of
virtually every aspect of American society. Is there not a fundamental disconnect
here? What could possibly explain this self-contradictory faith in the power of the
government to successfully solve the nation’s problems? I will offer three
explanations and then speculate as to which applies to the celebrity who now
occupies the White House. (emphasis supplied)
And Mr. Lipsman goes on to very intelligently do just that — offer three explanations; I commend this article to your attention. What Mr. Lipsman and I are suggesting is that
ask yourself this question: If you have some reservations re the manner in which the government deals with your automobile (the DMV), why would you feel secure in entrusting your physical well-being and that of your entire family (health care) to that very same institution. Please think about that question and read Mr. Lipsman’s column. In ensuing columns I intend to give you chapter and verse of government failure on a global, national, regional, and local level — stay tuned.