| 
Relativism and
the Rise of Big Government in America
by James
R. Birrell, Ed.D.
Associate Professor of Teacher Education, BYU
In
the end more than they wanted freedom they wanted security and a
comfortable life. And they lost all security, comfort and freedom.
The Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society
to give to them. When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom
from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free. Sir Edward Gibbons,
The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Introduction
This is my fourth
article on the influence of relativism (a rejection of absolute
truth) on life in America. Previously, I have asserted that relativism
is, at its core, the same anti-Christ, pro-humanist doctrine that
the radical Korihor promoted on this continent long ago, and was
reintroduced to America in the equally radical but more effective
social revolution of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s.
Relativist revolutions change people and cultures. History illustrates
clearly that the consequences of relativism are- among other things,
an increase in social disorder, the rejection of Christian religion,
and a devaluing of traditional values, the effects of which unavoidably
impact the scope and role of law and government in a nation. In
this article, I will argue that relativism has contributed to an
expanse of government, which unavoidably translates to a decline
of freedom in America.
Concerning our
freedoms, the Constitution, we are told in a metaphorical way, will
dangle by a lone thread. That should send chills down our collective
spine, given the other half of that prophecy about our role in preserving
this nation. Our freedoms are at risk because the very document
intended to prevent runaway government- the Constitution, is being
trampled on by forces- however sincere some may be, seeking to endlessly
expand the role of government in our lives. And as government expands,
it unavoidably-and often intentionally takes on new dimensions,
altering itself into something different- a parent, not a servant
of the people. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in
America, warned us of this possibility. He argued that increased
dependency on government will not only change the nature of American
government, it will change the nature of Americans. This segment
and the next will discuss this change, specifically our decline
into socialism, also commonly called democratic socialism
or social justice.
Government and Dependency
After overhearing
his parents pray for financial assistance, a young boy wrote a letter
to God saying, “Dear God. My family needs help. Please send
$100.00 today. Love, Tommy.” The letter made its way to the
dead letter file in Washington, D.C. where a postal worker
opened and read it. Moved by compassion, he took five dollars from
his wallet and mailed it off to Tommy. A few days later, a second
letter from Tommy made its way into the postal worker’s hands.
It read, “Dear God. Thank you for the money. Next time, please
don’t send it through Washington. They kept ninety-five percent
of it.”
Who would argue
that D.C. does not take too much of our money? And it is our money-
government is not a wage earner; there is no such thing as federal
money. We earn it while government spends it, often on special interest
factions that appeal to government today for an ever-larger share
of our earnings to support their pet causes- however sincere or
worthwhile. This creates dependency of D.C., expands governmental
influence into our lives, robs us of more of our income through
increased taxation, and is antithetical to the will of the Founders
for America. Said James Madison:
I cannot
undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of
benevolence, the money of their constituents (in Williams, 2000).
The Founding
Fathers drafted the Constitution to limit government, expecting
citizens to assume responsibility for their own lives (Elder, 2002).
Of course a segment of society would require additional support
from the masses; this was expected. For this reason, Thomas Jefferson
believed that states- not the federal government, should address
the needs of truly needy citizens. This would allow taxpaying citizens
to determine the kinds of resources recipient citizens would receive
from them, thus holding government accountable to taxpayers and
avoiding taxation without representation. It would also hold recipients
accountable to taxpayers. To do less, Jefferson believed, meant
the risk of draining capital from the majority of citizens to support
a system of coercion, corruption and privilege (Sheldon, 1998),
a system we are well acquainted with.
The federal
government, free of competition and too large for regulation, simply
cannot account to the taxpayer for the effectiveness- or even the
whereabouts of all the money taken from us each year. Moreover,
if you look at programs and institutions that Americans are most
often frustrated with- public education, postal services, welfare
agencies, child services, Social Security and Medicare, farm and
corporate subsidies, trade concessions and such, they are tax-funded,
government-run entities. Government programs are hardly models of
fiscal accountability and high efficiency. They take more, but they
often cannot produce more. In fact, the over-extension of government
into our lives has created problems that simply could not exist
in free markets. Chief among those problems is the growing dependence
on government, which continues to extend itself into the middle
and upper classes.
In the book Democracy in America, the Frenchman Alexis
de Tocqueville, after studying our nation in the 1830’s, argued
that the United States would be a strong nation until Americans
discovered that they could sup from the pubic troth. He worried
that government’s inherent consumptive appetite would be fed
by American’s willingness to be provided for- to get something
for nothing; this would cost American’s their liberties. Like
Jefferson, Tocqueville saw a large, expansive central government
as a threat to democracy. Whereas Jefferson feared that a rich,
powerful central government might too easily become detached from
the people, and thus become corrupt and despotic (see Sheldon, 1998),
Tocqueville worried that increased government regulation would create
the very dependency among people that we see today. That dependency
would change the kind of people we are. He wrote:
That power
is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be
like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object
was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary,
to keep them in perpetual childhood….For their happiness
such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole
agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for
their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates
their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their
industries, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides
their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care
of thinking and all the trouble of living?
He continues:
Thus it every
day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful
and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower
range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The
principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has
predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits
(p. 318-319).
Both Jefferson
and Tocqueville worried that as government grew, men would shrink
from personal responsibility and ambition, which would rob them
of virtue. Also, excessive centralized power would bring high taxes,
oppressive government, and financial corruption as government was
removed from close citizen accountability. The more a man asks of
his government, the more his government takes from him. Once given
away, man cannot recall the powers government now assumes. The cost
of excessive government, then, is the excessive loss of freedom
and income- which is also a form of freedom. For, as Tocqueville
argued, it is the nature of governments to seek constantly to enlarge
their sphere of action…a democratic government increases its
power simply by the fact of its permanence (p. 294).
Our dependency
on government is reflected in recent calls from nearly every state
for the federal government to bail out their fiscal irresponsibility
or shortfalls. And it is seen in our growing concerns about saving
Social Security- a dependence on government rather than self at
retirement. In addition to the Social Security Act of 1935, American
dependence on government is seen in the 1943 Current Tax Payment
Act, the 1958 National Defense Education Act, the 1965 Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, Medicare, and a growing array of governmental
regulatory programs, databases, and such. Of course, Americans are
told that these endless regulations and programs are for their good-
and maybe in ways they are; meanwhile, our working income, retirement
income, health care, children’s education, privacy and autonomy
are increasingly regulated by governmental control (see Twight,
2002).
The expansion
of government, thought Tocqueville, would result in a species of
oppression that would be unlike anything that ever before existed
in the world, a rule by guardians rather than tyrants (Twight, 2002).
Furthermore, while writing about the type of despotism that democratic
nations needed to fear, Tocqueville noted that Americans would be
tempted to submit to an immense and tutelary power, which takes
upon itself alone to secure the gratification and to watch over
their fate. He was right. Couple the beginnings of a welfare state
in the New Deal (Elder, 2002) with the Supreme Court decisions to
recast the Bill of Rights and engage in government by judiciary
(Berger, 1997), and you have the makings of a government of “wolves,”
as Jefferson would have put it (Sheldon, 1998). These wolves feed
on our willingness- and in some ways our legitimate need to increasingly
look to government, not God, as the grantor of life, liberty, safety,
security, equality and, ultimately, our very happiness. That is
the nature of government, by making itself indispensable, it creates
an ever-increasing need for itself.
In conclusion,
our lives are increasingly dependent upon federal and state governments;
this worries me. While there are legitimate ways that government
should serve the needs of citizens, too much government regulation
guarantees a decline in true freedoms and personal earnings. Excessive
government control can even lead to totalitarian-like measures,
such as those alleged in the now evolving and recently reported
Patriot Act II. According to Robyn Blumner (2003), the Patriot Act
II would give the U.S. attorney general the power to deport any
foreign national, even people who are legal permanent residents,
if he believes they would negatively affect our national security.
No crime need be asserted, no proof offered. It would authorize
secret arrests in terrorism investigations- as a way to overturn
a court order requiring the release of names of the Sept.11 detainees.
And it would strip citizenship from Americans for any political
associations with groups the attorney general designates as terrorist.
While some individuals
may take a degree of comfort from these potential laws, their eventual
enforcement will not guarantee our safety, prevent injustice, or
diminish the antagonism and division that already defines- and seeks
to destroy America; an abundance of laws do not make up for a dearth
of moral thinking and behavior in society (the Columbine murderers
broke almost two hundred existing gun laws). Little wonder President
Hinckley warned church members in a recent Spanish Fork and Salem
Utah Regional Conference at Brigham Young University (February 16,
2003) that the these are perilous times, both politically and economically;
forces of evil wash across us like a flood. More challenges are
ahead, he warned, and added, “We may suffer a curtailment
of our liberties.” And so he reminded us to pray, and promised
that peace will sustain the true and faithful. Good thing; governments
can’t promise as much. And unless the courts have changed
this, our money still reads, “In GOD (not government) we trust.”
In my next article,
I will continue to discuss government expansion and influence in
our lives. Tocqueville warned long ago that the struggle between
liberty and equality would result in a loss of freedoms for America.
He was right. Calls for social justice, as a means of promoting
educational (and other) fairness in America, will further the intrusion
of government regulation and taxation into our lives. Social
justice is a Marxist economical and social(ist) notion that
is a core component of the relativist revolution in support of diversity
in America. It is also the cornerstone of Multicultural Education
arguments today.
References
Berger, Raoul (1997). Government by Judiciary: The transformation
of the Fourteenth Amendment, 2d ed. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Blumner, Robyn
(February 21, 2003). Draft of Second Patriot Act was leaked, exposed
by a Justice Hero. Salt Lake Tribune, A19.
Elder, Larry
(2002). Showdown. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hinckley, Gordon
B. (February 16, 2003). Test Truth, President Hinckley Urges: Challenges
lie ahead, LDS leader warned. Quoted by Roger L. Hardy, Deseret
News, February 17, 2003, B3.
Sheldon, Garrett
(1998). What would Jefferson say? New York: Perigee Books.
Tocqueville,
Alexis de, Democracy in America, vol. 2, trans. Henry Reeve as revised
by Francis Bowen, corrected and edited by Phillips Bradley. New
York: Random House (1990).
Twight, Charlotte
(2002). Dependent on D.C.: The rise of federal control over the
lives of ordinary Americans. New York: St. Martins Press.
Williams, Walter
(2000). Could they be elected today? Creators Syndicate, August
17.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2003 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
