President Obama, in a recent address, commented on the gridlock that exists in DC as a result of the conflict over what direction to lead the country; more government control or less. It wasn’t just a passing observation. The point he was trying to make was that the inability of government to agree on and pass legislation hurts the American people. It’s true that there are apposing ideologies in Congress and, at times, passionate pleads from both sides of the isle fall on deaf ears. But is it necessarily a bad thing for the American populace when government fails to reach a consensus?
The assertion that the problems Americans face are due to partisan bickering is based on at least two faulty premises.
- Someone in Washington knows what the right course of action is for every American and if he/she/they could get their way we’d all be better off.
- Our “chosen” rulers could legislate away societies problems if power, sufficient to squelch all opposition, was granted to a select few to implement the CHOSEN PLAN.
It fails to recognize two obvious points of contention.
- No person or group of persons, no matter how much power they are given or take, can possibly have the foresight and knowledge necessary to manage an economy and decipher, let alone deliver, those things which are required by individuals to live happy and productive lives.
- There is a real and undeniable history of past legislation that, while it’s intentions may have been upright, has resulted in less than optimal outcomes for the present American people.
Perhaps if every historical Congress had spent more time bickering, and less time compromising we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today? Perhaps, finite man has no business attempting to “run” a nation on what amounts to whims and guesses? Perhaps every individual is best equipped to determine for themselves what course of action is best suited to obtaining their own personal goals and dreams. Perhaps the most beneficial role of government is serving to protect the individual from coercive hoards and enforce contractual obligations. Perhaps the wile nature of the interaction between free men would prove more efficient and effective at determining and meeting the needs of the individual than even the best executed plans of coercive government.
But, alas, the prevailing sentiment from our fearless leaders continues to be “if only we had more power to do it OUR way rather then THEIR way, we could get America out of the mess it’s in.” I say it’s time for our politicians to get the message loud and clear. Their way doesn’t work. The moral and logical mindset of individual liberty and freedom is the future. It’s time every individual American takes back the reigns of their own destiny rather than relying on government.
I fear that far to many people are not ready for that type of freedom. Perhaps it’s because people recognize problems they themselves cannot remedy. Rather than recognizing the free market (free from government’s distorting policies that favor one group over another) and sound money (free from the manipulation of a small group of cartelized bankers, legitimized by congress and tasked with the impossible and unnecessary feat of managing the economy) as the best path to prosperity for the widest swath of society, they are all to willing to rally behind a single man or a small group of men who claim to have the ambition and the knowledge to make things “right”. In such a state of affairs, many fall, time and time again, for the empty promises of politicians.
When a president runs for office, we hear all about their past, their ideals, and their plans for how to make America great. It’s often stated that we need a president who can turn this economy around. Do you look to government as the answer to your problems? I don’t. I laugh when I hear a politician boast the ability to run a country. I mean, c’mon, none of us are capable of embarking on a task like that with any real likelihood of success. Especially when success entails the outcome being judged, not only by the ruler, but by the subjects as well. Upon failing, we hear that it’s not a lack of ambition and passion on the failing politicians part. No, it’s that insufficient power was granted to the leader to implement his or her plan properly. As if more power in fewer hands has ever resulted in an outcome that benefited the masses.