The first significant American political debate about the proper role of government between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists rages on! Back in 1787, Anti-Federalists were highly mistrustful of those who proposed the need for a strong central government with much greater responsibilities than was conceived by the Articles of Confederation. Not much has changed. Today, people are divided once again (and not necessarily along political party lines) about the proper role of government in their lives.
Since he took office one year ago, President Obama has lobbied heavily for government intervention in resolving some of the country's most hotly debated and most difficult issues. Some people have welcomed calls for government intervention into seemingly broken health care, finance, and environmental systems. Other people are convinced that such government intervention is nothing short of furthering a socialist agenda.
In his article linked below, Joseph Ellis, suggests that these difficult problems facing our country today can only be resolved if we view the government as "us"--"the chosen respresentative of our collective interests as a people and a nation" rather than "them"--intruders into our individual freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
What do you think? After reading his article, do you agree or disagree with Ellis that the ghosts of Anti-Federalism must be laid to rest and people need to trust government to resolve the country's most difficult issues?
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/53072787.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
I definitely agree with Ellis. The main problems facing our country that he discussed in his article--healthcare, the financial system, and the environment--are all problems that can't be solved by individuals. In order to make lasting and impactful changes, action needs to be taken by the federal government. Look at what happens when the government doesn't play a role in certain systems: under Bush's presidency we followed a policy of deregulation, and now we're in a recession. Also, in terms of the environment, government action is necessary because there can be very little change without laws that limit industrial greenhouse gas emissions, such as a cap-and-trade system. According to the world's leading scientists the "point of no return," i.e. the point where we've done so much harm to the Earth that there is no reversing it, is in the next ten years...so we should really get on that...and without government intervention it's not going to happen.
I totally agree with both Ellis and Lizzi. I think that what has been happening is in an age where everything that we do is instant, you don't even have to wait to get home to surf the internet anymore, people are so concerned with what is best for them right now that they aren't looking to the future. People aren't willing to change their lifestyles now to help our lives in the future. In response people turn to the government to blame for their problems and, as Ellis stated, treat it as "them", the intruders on our freedoms as if we were still declaring our independence from Britain. Times have changed though and its time for people to start taking responsibility for their part and allow the government to do its job without criticizing its every action when it doesn't turn out exactly the way they had hoped. Before the Vietnam war most people thought it was a good idea to enter but after no one could think of why we did. People are quick to blame others for their problems and the government is an easy target. I think to succeed, we need to think more like what Ellis stated and see the government as "us", treating both its successes and failures as our own.
I find it interesting that government is responsible for being the hero and the villain. I believe that a federal government was established without the intentions of taking on all the tasks it's left with today. The government is huge. When it takes on a problem, it takes too long to find a solution. I understand the view that government should take control because it is supposed to represent the American people as a whole and has the ability to regulate policies. But what policies exist with total support? None.
Ellis is right to say that there are certain problems that cannot be solved without government intervention. However there are limits to this. While the changing landscape of our country has created situations that require intervention, it is important that we still understand limitations to these policies. While heavy intervention was necessary in the banks after 2008's financial crisis, the article talks about how nationalization of the banking system would have been a more efficient solution to the problem. Perhaps it would be. But granting the government close to unlimited power, even temporarily, is an unnecessary breach in the rights of the people. If the problem can be fixed with no government intervention, there should be no intervention. Otherwise the government would be stepping over it's limitations, and violating its responsibility to the people to respect and protect our rights.
I disagree with Ellis. The problem is that the government has been too involved with the market lately. Ellis mentions that the government best manages a collective interest but in reality, individuals are better at making decisions for themselves than the government. The government has been spending too much and taxing too much which only destroys jobs in the end. It's been shown time and again in history with countries like the USSR and North Korea, when the government runs all aspects of life, people suffer. Now I understand that we aren't going to that extreme here in the U.S but the point is the same: bigger government only causes more harm.
I agree with Ellis, Lizzy, Kyle, and Jack, I think the government needs to help out. But I don't think it should be overbearing. When the people cannot manage then the government should aide. But to get rid of the long time the decisions take I think it would be best to have a part of government such as an agency take care of it.
I also disagree with Ellis. If the people running our government were truly there to help us and look out for the good of the people, many of today's problems would not exist.
The issue is that government officials are rational human beings that decide things for themselves, and as such, often will not do what is best for the group as a whole.
Take the national debt for instance. What has the government done to resolve that issue? It has only become more and more bloated lately, taking on roles that private organizations can and do fulfill better. It has gotten involved in a number of wars that it refuses to pull out of, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars. And in an attempt to at least make a dent in the debt, the government has cut education spending; one of the few services that the government should actually be providing.
To go on, healthcare is not a concern for most Americans, but job security and even jobs in general are. In a time when unemployment is the worst in decades, all our government can think to do is waste money on a plan to overhaul the entire healthcare industry.
If our government really cared about us, I would be a happy man. But until the day that solemn, righteous men, who put the people first, take office, I have better things to do than to watch the single most slow and inefficient organization in the world flounder around in the name of caring about me and solving my problems. Let the government govern, and let the people, the innovative minds, solve society's ills.
Remy I think you're getting a little pessimistic. There are some instances where government intervention is absolutely necessary. Take for example the banks. Our entire financial crisis was caused by deregulation of mortgages. Banks were giving them out to anyone who asked at a point.
But I do agree that lately government has been overstepping its bounds in terms of the national debt. The main concern isn't necessarily that we'll 'run out of money'. But the more the debt builds up the more inefficient government becomes, as more and more bureaucracy is needed to pay off the growing interest payments needed to pay off bonds. We need years where the government brings in more money than it spends after this financial crisis is dealt with.
The government was not created to solve every problem and issue. The government today, although it has well intentions, is neither efficient nor effective. Part of the reason why is due to its large size.
For a government that has difficulty running the post office, I am concerned that our government wants to manage health care, which is one sixth of our economy. I think regulation is a better strategy than total control of the health care initiative.
The government needs to prioritize the issues. Number one being the economy. The government needs to help in job creation without inefficient spending. Our government cannot handle much more debt without it bankrupting our country and being a threat to national security.
I feel it is appropriate for the government to take on the environmental issues. The green movement could provide much needed jobs, a boost to our economy, and put team america one step ahead.
I also agree with Ellis. However, i disagree with some previous comments. It is obvious that we need to consider government as "us" and like Kyle said, "treat both its successes and failures as our own", but even though we know this, what is the governement doing to change health care for example? Obama has talked about change since his campaign, and yet where is this dramatic change? I also agree with Sammy that no policies have total support, making it hard to reach a solution to a problem in a timely manner.
Oh and saying that Bush's administration was an instance of "minimalistic government", while I partially agree with that, so is Obama's. Like I said earlier, where is this change we were promised? And what exactly has Obama done to advance solutions to the many problems facing his administration? Not much
The most effective method of choosing a solution to our problems is not to decide which policy will negatively affect the least amount of people. In this sense, I believe both parties have failed in trying to solve our nation's problems. I strongly agree with Ellis that we need to classify our nation as "us." Finding solutions that are in the best interest of all people is simply unrealistic. The only solution available for any of these problems is compromise. Someone has to make a sacrifice. Sometimes, when you look at the big picture, you see that the best solution may be inconsistent with your party's beliefs. There are risks for both government intervention and no government intervention. What the nation needs to do is set aside all party lines, and look at the big picture. This, however, is quite unrealistic. An entire nation is not going to be able to erase all preconceived beliefs and look at these problems with a fresh eye. The fact is, sacrifices will need to be made no matter what. But we are truly losing sight of the big picture. Think about England. England used to be the wealthiest country in the world, and because they didn't look at the big picture, they're in serious debt right now, worse than the U.S. The bottom line is sacrifices have to be made. There are people in this nation who are willing to risk their life in our army, and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice, while others complain about a mere 4% increase in tax rates for the wealthiest members of our society. If those people who are complaining looked at the big picture, they would realize that their argument is futile. The only conclusion I can come to is this: in order to decide what is best for our country, government intervention or no government intervention, we as a nation would need to set aside all party lines and look at the big picture. The unfortunate reality, is that this is impossible. Therefore, the solution to our problems remains unclear.
Mary, that's exactly the problem that exists in our government today. It's been so used to being big that it cannot fathom being small again. Unless something drastic happens, and I mean like really crazy drastic, our government will only continue to grow in size. The way I see it, our government takes too much upon itself. Social Security, for instance, is just a giant ponzi scheme that will never work itself out. There have just been too many bad decisions on the parts of the executives and legislatures of the past to give us stability in the foreseeable future. What the government needs to do is become smaller so that it can function more efficiently and spend less money. These are the causes of the problems of today, and although the solutions are far from simple, something must be done to make "big government" into "small government"(Think Thomas Jefferson).
I think that Ellis is right in saying that we need the governments help on the issues we are facing currently. in theory however, i would actually agree more with less government control. i think that the governments powers can take away many freedoms we should have as citizens. for example, on a smaller scale, the law for edina is that if you are under 18 you can not go out past 12 at night. i think that we should be able to do so and that it shouldnt be their business taking away this simple right. But in practice, the we need the governments control even if we lose these rights, because with the issues we are facing such as health care and the environment, it has to be a collective effort with a driving force, the government, that will help us all pull out of the problem.
I would agree with Ellis. Although I definitely believe that there should be boundaries between people and the government, however in many instances I think it is necessary to have the government help solve the problems that affect us all. In terms of health care I completely agree, because people are afraid of "creeping socialism" they won't accept a new type of health care and instead are trying to hold on to a flawed and ineffective method. Things won't get done unless the government has a certain amount of control to fix and control things. As stated in previous blog posts, the environment is an excellent example of this. Also, the banking system needs to be revamped and rethought and this cannot be done by anyone but the national government. Do I want the government listening in on my phone conversations? No. However, putting regulations on the enviroment, providing safety nets for the needy, and eliminating a flawed banking system are all examples of things I believe are reasonable for the government to do something about. As Paul Wellstone said "We all do better when we all do better."
Personally I really agree with Emily's train of thought. I think that no matter what happens someone will be unhappy and to try to change the government to make everyone happy is unrealistic. Personally I'm all for change because like many I think there are problems that could be fixed and I know many people rallied behind Obama's message of change. However, I know that instant change that will please both sides is, like Emily was saying, unrealistic. When Obama campaigned for president I think that the best thing he could have done was tell the people that he would change things. Once he got into office though I think he realized that all of the changes he would like to make during his term are unrealistic and may even take well over the rest of his life to accomplish. You can't simply tell people to change and expect them to agree with you. The way our government is set up if you want to change something without a unanimous decision it will take time which is what is happening.
Continuing what Kyle was saying, I think what Obama needs to do is try his policies, like he is, and once he notices that they aren't working, change his plan. Our nation can't take A LOT of change, but if something isn't working, it's probably a better idea to switch game plans. For example, with healthcare, it may be true that we just need to give the plan more time, but there are other issues that desperately need addressing that could be addressed in a more timely manner. If Obama does decides to change the policy and the new policy requires more government control in order for it to be accomplished, so be it. If a new policy requires less government control, then that's understandable as well.
I support Ellis's opinion. Regardless of how much power the government should have, the people need to trust it. It is, after all, composed of people we voted for (for the most part anyway). How can our government succeed if we don't trust it? Look back on the "good old days" of American government, such as the 1950's, when the United States was at one of it's economic high points. That was a time when people really trusted and dedicated themselves to our government, and (except for the atrocities of the Red Scare) it paid off. Now, there ought to be limits, certainly. As Ellen said, I do NOT want the government tracing my calls or anything. But in issues outside of natural rights, I think the government can handle itself. Part of the reason I think people don't trust it is because it seems ineffective. But if people, including government officials, just open up to letting the government take charge of things like health-care and environmental issues, it could work a lot more effectively. And as for the fear of this creating a doomed socialist or communist society, keep in mind that our natural rights are still retained, so there's really no risk. I would like for someone to explain to me exactly what would be so horrible if the U.S. government took on some socialist qualities (not being sarcastic, I'm actually curious). I mean, the founding fathers, though they hit the nail on the head for a lot of things, couldn't have predicted the United States to become as large as it is today, and couldn't have accounted for the changes it needed to undergo. That's why they made amendments possible. So, though a big government is indeed expensive, how else can we run a country with over 300,000,000 people without kicking folks out? And, though this may perhaps be a pessimistic view on human nature, our treatment towards the earth and other issues have been just as bad as what we blam the government for (as mentioned before, we did vote for them). This fear of letting the government grow to accommodate the size of its population and the needs of its people has to be put aside, at least until we give it a chance. Understandably, it has botched up some things in the past, such as national debt and the state of our educational system, but if we step back and give it some time, I'm sure we can trust the government to work in our interest.
Emily. You could not be more right. Who cares what party you are affiliated with? I completely agree that we need to just put parties aside and focus on the big picture, especially problems such as Ellis cites in his article (healthcare, the financial situation, and the enviornment). It is so silly that our political parties find it necessary to butt heads on every matter and never compromise. A compromise is what we really need. We also need Obama, like Emily said, to try out his policies, instead of backing out of them. It just seems like he is all talk and no action. Meanwhile, unemployment has only been affected by filling governmental positions, which the people are all paying for, instead of private sectors, such as industry, which is what helps the economy flourish. This is evidenced by the fact that there are more people working for the Department of Agriculture than actual farmers themselves. Problems such as these need to be solved, rather than pushed to the side. The only way we will be able to do this is by compromising and thinking of the government as "us". And Emily, it is as if you took the words out of my mouth. I totally agree with you.
I agree with Ellis. Problems he acknowledged like health care and the environment are problems that definatly need some government involvment as individuals will not be able to solve these alone. I think that Sammy bring up a really interesting point on how the government can be viewed as both the hero and villain. I think that it is primarily seen as the villain in our society. When everything is going fine and things are good, it seems no one truly acknowledges the work it does, but as soon as things, like the economy, start to go bad everyone attacks the government. Essentially it's slow to praise and quick to blame.
I agree with Ellis that the government needs to intervene with certain issues like health care and the environment because if they don't nothing will get resolved. We need someone to take action and to try to come up with solutions to these issues. I also agree with Sammy's comment on how government is viewed as both a hero and a villain because it is very true in society today. People do not give the government enough credit for what they do for our country.
i agree with mary completely. i dont think this issue has anything to do with what party you belong to.a lot of the issues we are dealing with, for example the environment, is a issue that need imediate attention and is getting worse by the second. we need to take action now, and the conflicts between political parties is slowing us down to the point that we arent making any progress. the politicians need to focus on the problem at hand, and instead they are focusing on the debate of what to do. find a solution, and act on it. thats what the country needs.
Agreed Claire. I like to stress that idea of cooperation. I mean, our Constitution, despite extreme opposition, was drafted and ratified in about a year, with FAR fewer delegates than we now have government officials. Think about it: the document from which our entire government is based was written and ratified in roughly a year. Now, our government, with much more man-power, is unable to pass a health-care bill in twice that time. And where some would argue that's due to the unnecessary expansion of government, I think it is due to too much opposition. Even the Anti-Federalists were willing to compromise, and look where that got us. I would never argue that people opposed to something like the health-care bill should go against their beliefs, but there is a line where opposition stops becoming constructive and starts becoming a hinderence. I hope I don't sound stupid saying this, and please prove me wrong if I am, but has compromise EVER set us back as a country?
We've all seen what's happened to countries that have an improper balance between government and the people being governed. Too much government help and the people feel like they have no control, too little and people start goin crazy. Finding a balance is difficult, and I think the U.S. has done a pretty decent job considering all the things that we're struggling with. No matter how much the government is involved no one will be happy. We look for what's wrong with the government because we love to hate them. They're like the flute section in band. Going along these lines it seems to me as though sometimes the government really does need to step in to try and solve some of our big overbearing problems. No matter what people are going to be unhappy, so if the government would take the heat and step things up, everything would be hunky-dory. Then again our government can't seem to function in a timely fashion, so even if they did decide to step in more than they are now things could potentially take fffffoooooorrrrrrrreeeeeeeeevvvvvvvveeeeeeerrrrrrrrr to get completed. Long story short, government today is extremely round-about and it's impossible for everyone to be happy. Hell, maybe it's impossible for even half of people to be happy. The government needs to stop worrying about "happy" and start worrying about right. Get off your donkeys and elephants and talk to each other like human beings!!
I also agree with Ellis. One of the purposes of government is to help solve problems that arise in its country. Without the aid of the government, it would be impossible to get many things done, if anything done at all. I believe that government intervention is crucial to solving and taking care of important issues. As Irini said though, it is important that the government does not get carried away and stays within its boundries. Too much government involvement results in a tyranny of a sort, too little government involvement results in nothing being accomplished.
I agree with Ellis's statement that with the issues our nation faces today, some government intervention is necessary. The issues such as health care, social security, the rising emissions of carbon dioxide, among other issues are too large for one person or a cooperation to handle on their own. However, with so many problems on its plate the government seems to be solving very few of them. I believe that the government has overloaded itself with so many issues and contradicting opinions that a solution to any of them seems unlikely. I agree with Emily and Mary, that in order to fix any of the current issues people are going to have to compromise and work together instead of against each other.
I can see both sides of this argument. I count myself a liberal but I am definitely close to the middle. However I agree with Ellis, it is time that we trust our government. It is not here to harm us and put us into slavery. A larger federal government is necessary in these times as Ellis' examples show it could expedite solutions and end the mire of problems like health care in congress. It could end the banking struggle. In the end we must begin to trust our government, we elect them, we select them for their values and intentions. We must still be vigilant and not blindly agree to whatever they propose. We must safe guard our natural rights but we must also realize the federal government must take more control.
Remi to refer back to your original post I'd like to say that hopefully we can trust these people we elect, we should be able to. We should select them for their values and initiative. If we don't do that that is our own fault. As for the issue of national debt I believe we have only ever had one president who has balanced and eliminated the debt, we are always going to have a national debt and go through cycles where it is larger and cycles where it will begin to be balanced. We are in the biggest recession in years so we're spending to try and revitalize the economy.
I agree with Kelly. Everyone hates the flutes and even if they were to do a good job(which is a stretch) we still wouldn't give them credit - like the government. We should start making compromises and work to solve these problems because the longer we wait, the longer worse the problems are going to get. In this case the government is acting as a mediator trying to get both sides of each issue to be happy with their decision - thats why we need government involvement. If we didn't have government involvement everyone would just continue arguing -the government is able to act somewhat as a neutral party.
I agree with Ellis statement that Americans’ fear of a tyranny is often too elevated to the point where the government is not able to effect any change. Health-care is a good example of a pressing issue that could benefit from government involvement because of the success seen in other nations. Of course the US is a massive nation with a government that can become bogged down with bureaucracy, so I wonder if it wouldn’t be more effective to have the government confront the issue by supporting private agencies that run efficiently. I agree more with liberal ideological attempts to create a society of more equal opportunity, but believe that the best way to achieve these goals might be through supporting private organizations.
Ps I have no idea if this makes any sense…
I also disagree with Ellis. I don't believe that the government should have as much of a role as they currently do. The government owns part of car companies now for crying out loud (what is it like 49% of GM), I think that is ridiculous. While yes, they saved GM, things like this are not something that government should have a hand in. I also believe that if the people were more in control that we would not have the many problems that face our country today dealing with health care and such (like Remington said).
I do agree though that in some cases there should be government intervention. Like Ellis talked about in the article, environmental issues. The problem with the government intervening in issues like this however, is that they take it way too far. They create all these groups and commitees that make the government grow and expand more into our lives.
I think the government should be there to protect our rights and provide us with the necessary security and safety.
I don't think that it is that ridiculous that the government owns part of GM because they pretty much payed for it though i do think that they should sell it as soon as possible because it is better to have the people own it than have the government owning it.
I would like to agree with many of the comments made before me by various people. Cooperation is the key to a successful government. There needs to be a balance between states' rights and the federal government. However, sometimes this balance is a pendulum, like we talked about in class, and I believe that this is necessary. Sometimes in order to solve problems the government simply needs to take control for a time, in order to make necessary and effective changes. Then in the future the pendulum will swing back and the states' will get a win when the country is more stablized. This constant tension is what makes our country what it is. We need to accept that sometimes we won't always like how things are done, but nevertheless the need to be done and sometimes the only way to do this is to give our national government some control.
I agree with what Ellen said about how the government can make effective changes. We may not all like how something is being dealt with, but at least if the government took some serious control for a period of time things would move forward. The main problems in the country (healthcare, environment, etc.) are not going to be solved if the government is being held back by people who are too scarred of socialism.
I agree with Paige's comment about how the government needs to act as neutral party in order to get problems resolved. One of the major flaws currently with the government is that nothing is getting resolved which defeats the whole purpose of it. The government needs to start coming up with compromises and taking more action in making decisions.
I tend to find myself in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Ellis in the article. I believe it is important to view the government as an "us" as opposed to a "them." I particularly support Ellis' opinion regarding health care. It often seems that Americans are too frightened by the prospect of possible socialism to even consider logical solutions to the many problems that plague our nation today. The United States is one of the only developed countries in the world that has yet to adopt a government-run health care system. Clearly, this would be a logical choice for our nation. And, as Ellis stated, we can all acknowledge that our current system is flawed. But with so many Americans allowing themselves to be ruled by a constant fear of "creeping socialism", the large-scale reform that is necessary becomes impossible.
I agree with Ellen. I do think there needs to be a balance between state and national government. I don't think that government should be in as much control as they currently are in, although, I know our country is currently in an economic crisis, which I understand the government needs to intervene in to help us out. But I agree that there should be some balance between the two, but I lean more toward states having more power than the federal government.
I agree with Paige's idea that most Americans are "slow to praise, but quick to blame" when it comes to the federal government. As many others before me have already expressed, it's completely impossible for the government to satisfy everyone, no matter what action they take. This is one of the reasons why I believe it's important to view the government as an "us" rather than a "them." Obviously, not all of our nation's problems will be solved by simply giving our government more support, but I believe it's important to do so nonetheless. There are no easy answers to the many controversial issues that face our nation today, but I agree with Emily and Lisa that through compromise we can hopefully come closer to reaching solutions.
Sounds to me like a lot of us are on the same page here. We're all trying to get the same things and trying to do what's best for our country. The only part that's missing is cooperation. So much of politics is tearing down others to make yourself look good, when really they should be building each other up. These are the people we want to represent us, and insulting them only makes politicians seem childish. Hannah's right. We're all spending too much time worrying about each other and not enough time making strides towards bettering the country.
I agree with Anna's statement that American's are so afraid of socialism that they don't even consider some of the options that could solve the major issues our nation faces. if the government could be seen by the people as "us" instead of "them" as Ellis stated, The fear and the blame people put on the governemnt caould be lessened and the governemnt could interevene where it is needed without as much controversy. Although i do see the other side, where in some cases the governemtn is not needed and might sometimes only complicate the issue farther.
Well, I don't think the big problem is that Americans are afraid of socialism, although they are. They're simply sick of the government constantly ruining things. Like the way that the political parties change so often in government is a great example. A couple years ago, the Republican party was the dominant party and now it has switched to the Democrat party. With all these constant changes, the government tends to make a great number of mistakes, even though I think they might have made them regardless of political parties. Its just learned distrust of all ruling people.
I agree with Zena that the strong partisanship seen in current American politics is troubling. This two party system leads to division rather than cooperation. So if we truly intend to create a unified government that can initiate change, we must reform this divisive system. This is why I support instant runoff voting, as it encourages people to vote true to their beliefs rather than compromise by voting for someone who has a chance at winning.
The phrase hero and villain is an interesting one to use, there is significant truth in it. It cannot be denied that government must intervene and control key issues in our society because, like it's been noted, a government that doesn't step up and in will usually fail at producing positive results. A society led by the masses will be stretched in a thousand directions, and it is necessary for government to lock down and make key decisions. It gets the job done. Partisanship is about pleasing a demographic, not meeting needs and addressing issues in a leveled, fair way. An effective government cannot function when it is being pulled apart so strongly by two sides looking for re-election.
Post a Comment