There is a tremendous amount of rhetoric bandied against the federal government. It seems to rest on a few basic assumptions.
[ul]
[li]It is incredibly bloated and bureaucratic.[/li][li]It is so inefficient that any money spend will be lost due to graft and misallocation.[/li][li]It is unable to solve our fundamental social ills.[/li][li]It is on one side of a bipolar division: the people are “Us” and the Federal Government is “Them.”[/li][/ul]
These assumptions appear to have arisen with startling prominence during the Reagan administration, only to be exploited by politicians thereafter like Newt Gingrich. They contended that the federal government was inefficient and irredeemable while slicing government programs right and left, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since it cannot accomplish anything meaningful, the federal government is worthy of our contempt and should be scaled back further. By eliminating federal spending on social issues, the argument has all but indoctrinated an entire generation of people.
So here are my questions. The federal government is composed of elected officials and ordinary people working ordinary jobs.
Wherefore this distinction between Us and Them?
Why is there such unreasoning hatred of the government, especially it’s internal machinations?
Are the internal politics really that different from any corporation’s?
How was the American public spirit so ruthlessly killed?
The above does not necessarily reflect my own political views. I am not arguing for an increase in the role of the government, nor am I putting my own opinions on the line at this time. Finally, this is not an argument about the relative effiency of the government compared to that of the private sector. I am interested in the descent of anti-federal rhetoric, and I am curious why it has caught on to the point that its underlying assumptions are rarely questioned.
I don’t like government. Am I following some type of trend? No. I don’t like institutions whether they be religious, corporate, governmental or otherwise in nature. Philosophically, I find them to be distasteful. I can’t speak for the rest of the population. I know not whether their perspectives are generally enlightened or simply reminiscent of the proverbial bandwagon; however, I can share my thoughts (which, in my arrogance, I believe to be based in reason).
One cannot clearly separate Us and Them. One must be aware of the fact that it is Us which makes Them. One can express distaste for the values parts of Us hold, i.e., the desires some of Us have to perpetuate Them. In that regard, one can make a distinction between Us and Them, insofar as philosophy is concerned.
My hatred is not unreasoned.
Yes and no. The overall goal of the both beasts is to perpetuate its own existence. The pretenses under which this goal is achieved does vary.
I’m not sure what you are driving at here. Are you inquiring about a sense of patriotism?
Yes, I believe you are in fact part of a trend. I doubt you dislike the government because it is trendy to do so, but it would be difficult to deny that you are not at all influenced by the general social tenor.
You just dislike all institutions?
I’d be happy to hear your reasons.
Completely agreed…but not entirely relevant. You may not feel that there is a binarization between people and government, but many people do. It is the origins and propagation of this belief that I am investigating.
“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
This remark actually resonated with the people of its time. Remember the Great Society?
Now, our president-elect, in not so many words, says “I don’t like government. I trust the people.”
Where has the idea that together, joined under the auspices of government, individual people can make a difference?
I don’t see this as true hatred, just mistrust. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that as Americans, we have a cultural mistrust of institutions that are large and poorly understood. Witness, for example, the longtime suspicions that have plagued the Catholic Church or the Masons.
One probably can’t completely remove myself from social influences, although one can minimize such effects by utilizing faculties such as reason.
In general, yes, although my distaste for institutions may vary in degree depending on the particular nature of an institution.
In a nutshell:
Institutions are said to be of value because they rectify problems between individuals or aid in the growth of individuals. A member of an institution must assimilate the values and understanding of the institution. In that regard, the institution imposes limitations on the individual. Conforming to the ideals of an institution thereby limits the individual and humanity as a whole. Moreover, institutions attempt to accomplish various tasks through the utilization of its components. When two institutions have a conflict, any resultant negative ramifications are augmented due to the populations larger than one.
As I stated earlier, I cannot speak on behalf of that population without delving into complete postulation.
I never believed the idea held much truth–the difference of which you speak is constricted by the perpetuation of the system, and if ceasing said perpetuation is the aim, then one cannot make a difference.
Robin:
I don’t hate institutions. I may mistrust them, but such emotions are not the root of my distaste for them. Institutions are not compatible with my philosophy, ergo, my reaction is intellectual rather than emotional in nature (although some emotional coloring may occur). Essentially, we agree to a certain extent.
Ever notice what happened after the Cold War in Hollywood? Instead of the Russians as bad guys, we got a whole slew of movies where the NSA and CIA were the bad guys.
We’ve got lots of bad guys now. Among them you will find scientists, doctors (and hospitals), drug users, gun owners, corporate executives (no one in particular, just the concept) and environmentalists. We have an enemy for every political occasion.
Yes, I have noticed that, and it annoys me to no end. Not the fact that we see corrupt government agents - but the fact that these films take their corruption for granted.
Yes, sure, we have those. But none of them are the all-powerful, all-encompassing conspiricy that is the federal government. There’s no enemy nowadays which we can percieve today as in an “us-versus-them” situation, in which the “us” represents the entire American people, government included. The Communists used to be that enemy, but the Communists, alas, are no more.
Not that you need an enemy to be a nation. What you need is something that most Americans seem to lack, which is a sense of national pride (which is different from patriotism). This is a sense of community, of shared destiny, of fellowship with strangers that this country seems to have lost. Just look at the British, or the French, or the Japanese - they may not always love what their country is doing, but they know that it’s their country, and anything it does reflects on them. And vice versa. The U.S., on the other hand, seems at times to be a loosely confederated bunch of tribes, millions of individuals never looking beyond their own families and friends, if thet far. Perhaps it’s because America thinks of itself as on the top of the world, with nowhere else to go. Or perhaps it’s that weird old isolationism rising to the top - Americans mistrust their own government because they’ve forgotten that the rest of the world still exists.
orry if that turned into a bit of a rant. I’ve recently moved to the States, and these are a few of the impressions I’ve had over the last few months.
to Hell with Watergate, we haven’t gotten over Viet Nam!
That was when our childhood truly came to an end. It was the first war we had that was so vocally objected to by such a large portion of the population. Our government lied to us about our involvement and we saw right through them.
Ever since then, we’ve been disillusioned; we’ve learned to think of the gov’t as an entity we can’t entirely trust.
Power, the goverment has lots of it we don’t.
As for taking their corruption for granted, yes parts of them are corrupt. The goverment takes that for granted too:)
I agree ref: lack of patriotism in this country. Being a young’un myself, but a bit of a history buff, the lack of patriotism DOES seem to start gaining momentum with Vietnam/Watergate. How much faith can you have in your government when you know it lies to you? I also seem to notice that people take less of an interest in politics these days. Oh, it makes for a good joke, but on the whole, few people really care. I know I felt like I was choosing between Bubba and the Man Behind the Curtain in this year’s presidential election.
As far as whether it’s “chic” or not, I don’t think so. There’s an inherent lack of trust within a lot of Americans, and certainly within Generation X, for The Man. I know I take most things I read in the paper with a grain of salt. It’s ingrained in me at this point to say, “Who really knows what the hell the true story is?” “Us vs. Them” is also a valid point for what I’m saying. I also agree with Nen insofar as disliking institutions on general principles. I believe that our government was set up for the few to lead the many for the common good. At this point, there’s very little within the few that I think could govern my laundry right now. Institutions on the whole seem to follow this premise. A common mind-set is for the common. Perhaps it is arrogance to suggest that I believe I could govern myself better than those in power do. Perhaps it’s best if I sit quietly with my hands folded and let Bubba make protocol. However, knowing that guy is one late-night Pizza Hut call away from the red phone makes me nervous.
On the other hand, this could all be a ploy for me to get voted Queen of the Universe.
I put the book on my wishlist, Gadarene, but the suspense is killing me.
Does the author agree that the distrust is new for America as some posters here have posited or would he agree more with my assumption that the current situation is rather normal throughout American history except for the period following WW2?
The latter, 2sense, as you’d expect. Almost nothing is new under the sun, and it’s only our cultural ahistoricity that makes it seem so.
('Twas the topic of a paper I presented at an academic conference, in fact, entitled Politics as Usual)
Good catch. (Though even the period following WWII had its Red Menace, both real and imagined–both of which surely fall under the auspices of opposition to the federal government.)
Damn; sorry for the consecutive posts. Mentioning the 1950s made me think of another relevant book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics by Richard Hofstadter. More than you ever wanted to know about Barry Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and the reactionary right.
Thank you for the interesting book suggestions, Gadarene. They’re on the queue. And thanks for the insights, too, everyone. Especially yours, Nym :).
But let me rephrase the question. People don’t trust what power plays are occurring behind closed doors. That’s fine, and it’s a feeling I share. This mistrust is vindicated both by fatuous scandal-mongering and by real scandal. This is perhaps understandable. There is only so many times we can have our trust violated before we start to catch on.
However, I more intend to address government-run social improvement agencies. Why do people feel that the government cannot/should not/must not take any steps to improve society via funding, legislation, etc? The first three bullets in the OP deal explicitly with this view:
As Gadarene indicated, this is an incredibly ahistorical view. So who here shares it, and how did it get to be so strong?
It probably stems from the fact that in the 70 years since the New Deal, and the 36 years since the Great Society, the Federal government has failed to address those problems on any kind of permanent level. In fact, thanks to the partisan silliness that goes on, they may have only exacerbated them. (And that goes for both parties.)
Can anyone really, really argue with this one? Anyone who has spent any amount of time dealing with social service agencies (and I have) knows that they are likely, at any given time, to be caught in a frustrating, Byzantine maze of low-level functionaries and bizarre rules. There’s little doubt that any one of these agencies could take some streamlining. If these programs were admininstered at the state and local level, as I feel they should be, streamlining would be easy.
I don’t think this is true, although I do think that the administrative costs of these agencies eats too far into their budgets. Which means that in order to meet both administrative and benefit cost goals, they must receive increased funding, which results in higher taxes, which makes people more resentful and more reluctant to fund them.
I agree with this to the extent that these are often not Federal problems. They’re local problems, best understood and addressed by local and state governments. What ails Oakland is not necessarily what ails Cleveland, and while programs like ADC and WIC and what have you are certainly worthwhile, they are not a panacea. Better to have local agencies determine what the problems are and how to address them, and leave that money in the states for that purpose, than to increase the bureacracy at the Federal level (see your first point) trying to come up with either 50 custom state solutions, or a one-size-sorta-fits-all solution.
Is it s fad to hate the government? Is it a fad to wear Tommy Hilfiger shirts? I mean, somewhere there’s got to be a legitimate liker of those damn things.
But I can see, in talking to many people who don’t like the government, that its vaguely conspiracy oriented…like someone said about Hollywood movies, we all “know” government is corrupt. Sheesh, I say. I don’t like the government and I don’t even go that far.
But on the other hand, there are a lot of people who do believe that government can solve social ills. I guess its “fan” like on both sides, because many ignore some obvious evidence.
Is it ahistorical? Quite frankly, the reverse is true- the belief that the Federal government could take steps to improve society via funding and legislation only really began to rear its head at the turn of this century, and didn’t really get into full swing until the New Deal of the '30’s.
It is incredibly bloated and bureaucratic.
IIRC, the original treatises on the sociological effects of “bureaucratism”- that is, that a bureaucracy installed to solve a problem ends up ignoring the problem in order to focus on the survival of the bureaucracy itself- were made in the late 19th Century.
During the '40’s, there was a great deal of opposition to Roosevelt’s plan to build new “temporary” buildings to house government workers for the duration of World War 2, and much of that opposition was based upon the fact that the buildings that Wilson had had erected to house the government workers of World War 1 twenty-five years earlier were still there. Roosevelt mollified the critics by specifically selecting the ugliest buildings he could find, in the hopes that that would be extra incentive to have them torn down after the war, and many of them were still standing in the '60’s. And still filled with government workers.
It is so inefficient that any money spend will be lost due to graft and misallocation.
Anyone ever hear of the Truman Commission? During WW2, Truman headed a panel to investigate government spending, and found a great many boondoggles of military and government excess, where money was dumped into obviously unfunctional projects in order to support a Congressman’s nephew or a General’s pipe dream.
Remember also the “War Profiteers”, those individuals excorciated after World War One for having bilked the government for essential services and products.
And don’t forget the Gilded Age, during which the public coffers were basically raided by friends and family of senior elected officials. American belief (and correct belief) that much of their tax dollars go directly into the pockets of grafters has been around (again, correctly) for over one hundred years.
**It is unable to solve our fundamental social ills. **
An undercurrent of many beliefs- historically, based on the twin ideas that “local government governs best”, and ergo that high-up goverment (i.e., federal) governs worst; and that the Constitution prohibits such actions from being under the perview of Congress, but instead places such responsibilities at the states (a view held to generally only by libertarians and a small contingent of Republicans, the rest having accepted that nearly everything falls under “regulating Interstate Commerce”).
But recently, such failures of the system have become standard. The Great Society failed to truly acheive its goals, and created its own problems (out-of-wedlock births, a lack of viable social structure in the inner cities). Many ‘progressive’ governments- such as the New York City of John Lindsay- focused heavily upon redressing ‘social ills’ while ignoring the basic functions of city government (such as plowing snow). Welfare was decided to be more trouble than it was worth, and we look with trepidation at the busts that Social Security and Medicare soon will be.
To answer your basic question- it’s not that it’s chic. It’s just that we’ve had over eighty years of progressives stating that the Federal government was the absolute solver of American ills; and now enough flaws are seen in that idea that there’s not only a movement away from that idea but a backlash in believing that nothing government does is worthwhile.
Almost nothing is new under the sun, and it’s only our cultural ahistoricity that makes it seem so.