Why Politics and Economics Are Important: Fo Shizzle

On Government and Politics, Part 2

Read part 1 of this blog post here.


What is Government Supposed to Do?

It's been generally established that a great majority of the American public who are eligible to vote fail to exercise that right. As such, these represent well over a 100 million Americans who are apparently content being governed by whoever others (voters) choose.

Those who do exercise their right, privilege, and duty to vote go into the booth and make their choice as to who they want to govern them (and everybody else). Now, it seems to me that if we are choosing who will run the government and who will "govern," it would be a good idea to think about what government is and what it is supposed to do. After all, how well can we do a good job choosing GOVERNORS if we don't understand GOVERNMENT? That's sort of like picking the best NFL football team based on how their helmet looks.

Of course, that consideration doesn't seem to enter into some people's thinking. Most Americans know precious little about nearly every aspect of government. Even a simple straw poll of the Man on the Street consistently shows that the average American (though maybe not 'you') doesn't know even the basics about government-- things like, "What are the three branches of government? Who serves as the Secretary of State? Who is the Majority Leader of the Senate? What is a Filibuster?" and so on.

But despite the fact that many do not really understand the role of government, all that is required to choose the most powerful person in the world [POTUS] the President of the United States, is being an American citizen who has done nothing more than simply "been alive" for 18 years-- and noting else.

But, for argument's sake, if a person wanted to learn more about government, what would he or she need to know?


Theories About The Role of Government

The study of the role of government is the business of political science or political philosophy. There are different approaches to governing, but one of the major areas that separates the two major political parties in the United States (Democrat and Republican) is the issue of "Negative" and "Positive" rights. Let me try to explain.


Civil and Social Rights

Civil Rights are sometimes thought of as "negative rights," while Social Rights are sometimes thought of as "positive rights." The two major political parties in the United States largely line up along these two perspectives.

Democrats (Social Rights/Positive Rights)

Generally speaking, people who are ideologically committed Democrats (and not just those who consider themselves Dems because their mother was) favor positive/social rights. Positive Rights means that a person believes they have a "claim" to something-- that the government owes them some material goods and services. In other words, positive rights are "entitlements." People with this view think it is the "government's responsibility" to provide more than just protection and justice. They believe the Fed has the obligation to completely level the playing field between citizens (and sometimes even illegal aliens) by the compulsory enforcement of government-financed entitlement programs which raid money (through taxes, etc.) from one segment of society in order to re-distribute it to others.

So, in short, in this view-- the government has the right to forcibly take resources earned by one person/group and to give them to another person or group-- even if that person/group did not earn it. This inevitably leads to "big government" because the Fed must "manage" this money and distribute it to those agencies and organizations. This may include an expansion of basic public health into things like "government-provided universal health care" or "state-owned banks," etc., etc.

One more thing. In addition to a type of re-distribution of wealth or goods, politicians who believe in the idea of positive rights also works to ensure that the government provides resources to certain projects and organizations of its choosing-- or "earmarks." Here, government leaders work to create larger budgets for the expansion of funding for things related to "special interest" groups such as the National Endowment for the Arts or the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), or Stem-Cell Research, or AIDs Research, or the Anti-Gun Lobby, Planned Parenthood or Abortion on Demand monies, Evolution Research, Needle-Exchange Programs, and so on.

Note: Those who reject the Social Right approach (entitlements/big government/tax and spend/special interests/earmarks) are PRIMARILY CONCERNED that these programs are paid for using taxpayer's money. Whereas it is one thing for programs such as these to exist, it is fundamentally different when government officials subjectively choose specific organizations and issues and programs to fund, while other organizations with other convictions are ignored and excluded from such funding (for example, right to life organizations, and so on).


Republicans (Civil Rights/Negative Rights)

Whereas "True" Democrats hold Social or Positive Rights which express themselves in above the line entitlements, Republicans generally reject that approach. While Republicans agree that these groups have the right to exist, Republican thinkers do not believe they should be forced to pay for them to exist, nor pay for those positions to be financed with private tax resources.

As such, Republicans who truly understand what the overall Republican perspective on government actually is, support "negative" or "civil" rights for all people, but not special rights. So "ideologically committed" Republicans believe that government should provide negative rights, and that it is the responsibility of government to require people to obstain from the harm of others. In other words, rather than government acting in favor of advancing policies for a great host of "causes," the idea of negative rights simply argues that government should be objective about what rights people receive, which means EITHER the rejection of special interest groups OR a leveling of the playing field where a free and fair market can exist.

This can be a bit confusing, so let me try to unpack it better. Republicans get their understanding on rights from a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Recall that the Declaration said all people have the "unalienable right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These have historically been called "negative" or "civil" rights. What that MEANS is that government exists to ensure that individuals or groups of people do not forcibly intrude on one another. Accordingly, when a company tries to unjustly violate a person's rights, government steps in. Or when a person violates another's unalienable rights (such as the Bill of Rights, etc.), and seeks to harm, murder, kidnap, burglarize, cheat, trespass, supress the vote of, or otherwise restrict another person's rights, the government will act to stop them-- even using force, imprisonment, and punishment.

You see here that, in this case, government is not required to give greater ADVANTAGE to people... but merely to stop the disadvantaging of people. And because the U.S. government was historically created this way and the American body politic understood this, government from a Republican perspective was to be "smaller" with fewer agencies and less bureaucracy, and also made to be non-intrusive except when necessary, as well as to be a supporter of free-market, open trade, lower taxes, and fewer entitlement programs. That, of course, doesn't mean that Republicans are not for necessary things like unemployment programs or minimum wage laws-- but true Republicans with an understanding of negative/civil rights would not seek to expand these approaches in some of the ways Democrats would. You would not, for example, find a thoughtful Republican working to provide social security programs to illegal aliens/undocumented residents, nor would you find Republicans working to expand the Death Tax or Capital Gains Tax in order to give that money to able-bodied people who refuse to work to support their family.

There's a lot more to government theory-- and this brief introduction is certainly abbreviated and somewhat simplistic, but it is nonetheless accurate. It is upon these general principles that much of American politics is built. And once you understand these basics, you will also begin to understand some of the "planks" or "key positions" of each major political party, as those 'planks' line up pretty neatly along the principles stated above.


Political Parties By Perspective

Finally, I've provided a grid of how I think of some of the various political persuasions in the U.S., and how they might look on a continuum, in my opinion.

SOCIAL RIGHTS -----CIVIL RIGHTS

Communist >> Socialist >> Democrat >> Republican >> Libertarian >> Anarchist
Green >> Independent




Conclusion

There's enough in this post to make just about everyone mad. My purpose in writing it, however, is that it helps us think about what role Government should play in politics and society. Because I am a Christian, I look to scripture about these matters and generally believe that though the Bible does not identify political parties of choice, it does speak about political issues and, in particular, the role of government. Someone seeking to build a Christian worldview and one wanting to construct a biblical perspective on life would want to look to the Bible to identify how it 'treats' these subjects. In my view, it seems that the New Testament (which more accurately represents our time than the Old Testament's theocracy) tends to favor a less-intrusive approach of government and more of a negative rights approach. Everyone must make these judgments for themselves, but that is what helps dictate my opinions on these matters. Every person has a right and a duty to think about these issues for him/herself.

On Government and Politics

The Direction of Our Country

After a serious conversation with some friends earlier this evening about national and world events, I became even more convinced than ever about the fact that America is in clear and present danger.

Government=the People

Part of the reason our country in in turmoil is because of the condition of our government. But then, the government is essentially nothing more than a microcosm of society at large. Meaning-- one cannot separate a government from its people... In the United States, the government IS the people-- it is "of" the people and "by" the people. (Whether or not it is "for" the people is another question).

Government and Politics Explained

Government is essentially which particular system (controlling political theory and people) rules and exercises control over the people, territories, and structures (businesses, organizations, etc.) in its purview. Politics are the specific political theory a group has ABOUT government-- and the actions those people take to make their views and positions the law of the land or the primary controlling perspective. Different nations have different political systems and, in America, we have a democracy.

People sometimes rail on Democracy, because (in a democracy) one party rules over all others. Of course, the alternative is a Monarchy (where one FAMILY rules over all others), or a Dictatorship (where one PERSON rules over all others), or an Oligarchy (where on GROUP rules over all others, like a tiny communist party or a powerful band of government thugs)-- so, I'll stick with a Democracy, thank you very much.

But every human government is flawed, because every human is flawed. Even so, just because no human government is morally perfect does not mean that one political philosophy is not better than all others. That's why, in spite of its limitations, I prefer and believe that Democracy is the greatest political system on earth. In a pluralistic society, people are allowed the freedom to believe what they want, but government is still designed to protect the rights of the minority population and protect the general public as well. This is done by (a) ensuring that laws are morally and ethically sound, and (b) by government punishing those who break the law and by government also upholding the law.

Understanding How Democracy Works: The Representative Form of Government

In a democracy, since free voting elects representatives, by the very act of choosing elected officials, those who hold office are "representative" of the people who elected them. In other words, the people, character, decisions, and values seen in our communities' and nation's government are nothing more than a representative sample of the voting population. Think about that, if you want to see what America is made of.

So, when America votes a candidate or political party "in" or "out" of office, that represents the collective opinion of the nation's voting public (we, the people) concerning our values, ethics, opinions, perspectives, mores, and convictions about life. As such, the person who is elected assumes that, since he or she has been elected, he may freely vote or promote his views within the area of government to which he is assigned. And we live with the consequences.

Ironically, we often don't like the consequences of the decisions of elected officials who hold office. This leads me to a few observations: (1) The problem could simply be that we didn't vote in the first place and our lack of exercising the right to vote led to the lack of a voice in the selection of who would lead our government, rendering us powerless in the political process (and partially to blame through our apathy about voting in the first place), OR (2) We voted but our candidate lost-- which would reveal the need for greater involvement and effort to get the candidate of our choice elected, OR (3) We elected who we wanted-- and that person had similar values to us-- but the decisions they made (which were the same we would have made) had unexpected and unintended consequences... which may cause us to reconsider our political views and vote differently in the future.

Political Parties and What They Mean

People who vote do so according to "Party Affiliation" (Green, Independent, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) AND/OR according to personal values or convictions. It's funny that even "Independents" who want to be known for being "independent" are themselves even represented by a party-- the irony.

And what is a Political Party? A "party" is a body politic that represents a core constituency (a group of people) who hold similar views about a number of issues that influence politics. Each party identifies with certain views on issues-- and these party views are called "planks." Each political party (and candidate) has a number of "planks" or positions on specific issues. That said, being a member of a political party does not mean a person agrees with every major position of that party... it just means that, for the most important positions for that person, a specific party seeks to advance their perspective in society.

So, for example, a person who is a pacifist or a pro-choice or for capital punishment would typically vote with the political party that is most likely to push that agenda through the various parts of government, in order to enforce that particular value. So, contrary to popular opinion that holds that 'you can't legislate morality,' the truth is that ALL LEGISLATION is seeking to legislate morality-- that's the WHOLE POINT OF POLITICS--- to advance and codify and to enforce a certain set of values and behaviors... and to make illegal and punishable doing otherwise. Think about it!

But I regress...

The main point I am making is that America's representative government is a mirror of who and what the voting American public is. Those who don't/didn't vote voluntarily choose to have no voice about what their government does and how they will be governed--- they are at the mercy of others' whims.

People Choosing Who Govern Us Are Often Ignorant of What Government and Politics Are (**and what government is supposed to do**)

The frightening thing I realized through some close listening and thinking I've been doing lately, however, is that the direction of our nation is being dictated by people (voters) who may or may not even understand what government and politics are "about" in the first place. Especially critical regarding this situation is that I fear (as a Christian) that many Christians are ignorant of this as well. As a result, Christians may be complicit in allowing our nation to move in the wrong direction (farther from God and away from the best solutions for a better society) because of this ignorance.


One may ask, "Why is having an understanding of Government and Politics important" Well, simply because if one doesn't understand the nature of government/politics, then he will not understand what government is SUPPOSED TO "DO." And getting that wrong can cause us to (unwittingly) allow our nation and communities in exactly the WRONG direction.

So what? Well, when our nation moves in the wrong direction, it negatively affects everything that government touches, which is, well, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Does that make sense?

So, government is important because it has a daily impact on us in areas like: schooling, punishment, zoning laws for businesses and establishments, health and fairness regulations, taxes, government policies, entitlement programs, and the list goes on.

That's why we should understand the role of government and politics. To be ignorant or apathetic affects YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR MONEY, YOUR SAFETY, YOUR SECURITY, YOUR WELL-BEING, YOUR HEALTH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN IMAGINE.


The Moral of the Story

I believe that America's primary problem is related to people's relationship to God, collectively. But, because America is a nation and since nations are governed by political processes and political groups, that implies that the nation COULD BE BETTER OFF if we paid more attention to the political process and put our brightest and best people in office. But the central key to this helping us get out of the situation we are in as a nation, is partially related to American's understanding what politics are, how they work, and what should govern how we vote and who we choose for elected office.


I hope to address that point in a future post-- perhaps my next one.