Let me start by saying something that may seem completely obvious to some: we need the government. This fundamental truth is often lost in the shouting match that is modern political debate, but it still holds true. On one side of the aisle, the push is towards privatization. "Let's get big government out of the way, then American innovation can be free to prosper," or something along those lines. Proponents of privatization always frame the debate in these terms: "Big government" is getting in the way of success, and if over-regulation was removed, businesses can prosper. Privatization is an issue that deserves another post all to itself, so I won't really touch that subject today, but the underlying assumption is that government is unhelpful and woefully incompetent at dealing with the complexities of the modern world. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are many young people and other groups who are fed up with the whole institution and wish to just say "to hell with it all." When government is the toy of a few rich men disconnected from the interests of most Americans, it is no wonder many Americans are disenchanted with enfranchisement and feel powerless to better their lots. Regardless of your political bent, it is easy to blame all of the problems of today on the government. When these anti-government mantras are repeated, many people come to the conclusion that government is simply unnecessary. This conclusion is demonstrably false.
A good government fulfills two basic functions: to protect and to empower. Protection can be obvious, like national defense and police, or it can be less tangible, like the sewer systems protecting us from illnesses. Similarly, empowerment can be obvious, like affirmative action or subsidizing certain activities, or it can be much more hidden, as the education system or public libraries. These two functions are vital to a good government, and no successful society can exist without a guarantee of protection and a mechanism of empowerment. In the budget debates of the past year, a lot of numbers have been thrown around about the outrageous cost of government (and many costs are outrageous), but there has been little attention focused on the human value of those costs. By human value I mean the extent to which a certain policy or institution serves the fundamental goals of government. If a policy, such as lowering student loan rates to combat skyrocketing loan debt, is analyzed through an economic lens, it may seem financial folly, but one must read these situations through a human lens. Empowering our next generation to have the skills to be successful in a complex modern world should be the first priority of any nation - the benefits cannot be overstated. Because such a policy would empower a great portion of the population, it is a vital function of government and should not be casually discarded in the name of economic convenience.
The example of student loan rates is a simple one, but the same analysis can be applied to nearly any political issue. The primary question should be: "To what extent does this policy or institution empower or protect a segment of the population?" If the policy is very protective or empowering, then it is a good policy, if not, then it should be scrapped. We need police, fire fighters, hospitals, food and drug inspectors, environmental protections, national defense, etc., because they protect our very existence. We need schools, libraries, research grants, enrichment programs, and so forth, because they make that existence worth living. I finish today's post with an earnest plea. Never allow political expediency or ideology cloud the issue, the question is simple: to what extent does this protect or empower my fellow citizens? It is only after this question is answered in the affirmative that new policy should be enacted.
No comments:
Post a Comment