| Is our way
of life doomed? Maybe so
By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large
Frankly, I don’t know
how to respond to the air of discouragement that exists right now among
conservatives and libertarians.
In one corner of my consciousness, I suspect they may be right. There’s
a part of me, though, that can’t accept ultimate defeat.
I’m not talking about whether George Bush or Al Gore becomes president.
Neither one of them will be that great or that awful as president, I imagine.
I’m talking about the long-term future of our republic, and its gradual
trend over the last 50 years toward a more democratic form of government.
What’s wrong with democracy, you query?
My answer is to cite an example of pure democracy: when there are five
people stranded on a desert island, and three of them vote to kill and
eat the other two.
If we had pure democracy, black people would still be riding at the back
of the bus and attending “separate but equal” schools.
Theoretically, our government is not a democracy; it’s a constitutional
republic. In the past, we’ve been proud of the fact that we have
a government of laws, not of men.
What that means is that we have a constitution that spells out the law
of the land, and our government must rule by its precepts, regardless
of the whims of the president or Congress, or of the majority of citizens
for that matter.
That’s why our courts and our Congress were able to do away with
a system in which a minority of residents were relegated to second-class
status, in spite of the fact that the majority was enjoying its first-class
status. Our constitution stated plainly that all citizens have a right
to equal protection under the law, to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.
In recent years, though, the concept of government by laws has been eroding.
Young people don’t understand it, for one thing. I don’t know
what they’re teaching in civics classes, but I’d be willing
to bet that if you asked 100 high school graduates what form of government
we have, 99 of them would say we have a democracy.
The federal government has forced its way into area after area of governance
that the constitution clearly reserves for the states. Nobody tries to
justify this in terms of the constitution; they simply ignore it.
What has many in the conservative camp talking gloom and doom this week
is the bounce that Al Gore received in the polls following his convention
“something for everybody” speech. (Actually, I listened carefully
and, although I heard something for nearly everybody, I didn’t hear
anything for me... but never mind.)
Among other goodies, Democrats are promising “targeted” tax
cuts, instead of across-the-board cuts. What this means is increasing
the number of people on the lower end of the scale who pay no taxes at
all, and increasing the percentage of taxes taken from those at the upper
end of the scale.
That sounds egalitarian and, well, morally right. But on closer examination,
in addition to increasing the degree to which we punish success, it also
moves us closer to the day when the majority of Americans will pay no
income taxes.
Then, the majority will simply be able to vote themselves more and more
goodies — free medical care, more time off from work (paid, of course),
better retirement benefits (some paid by employers, some paid by “the
government”), more and more money poured into education (most of
it going for high-paying jobs in the education bureaucracy), a chicken
in every pot, a computer in every bedroom — all of it paid for by
the minority, the people in upper income brackets, the hated rich.
Maybe that sounds fine to you. I’m probably in the group that would
get the benefits and would not pay the taxes, so it sounds fine to me,
in the short run. Who knows, maybe I would be able to live out my life
in comfort, all my needs taken care of by the government, and would die
before the whole thing comes apart at the seams.
But sooner or later it would.
Think, people. What would you do if you were in the 35 or 40 percent of
the people supporting the rest?
First, you would start hiding as much of your assets as possible, probably
increasing your investments abroad, maybe opening some secret bank accounts
in Switzerland.
Eventually, you would die, and half your assets would go to the government,
the other half divided among heirs. Each heir would have a small fortune,
and no incentive to invest it, to build corporations, to create employment.
Meanwhile, if you’re working for a widget manufacturer, making your
30 bucks an hour and having all your medical, recreational and retirement
needs paid for by your employer or the government, you’re probably
not thinking about starting a company of your own. Why should you? You’d
have nothing but headaches dealing with the growing numbers of government
regulations, plus paying for more and more of your employees’ needs
because of government mandates.
Making a profit would be almost impossible, and you’d be better off
letting the government either take care of you or force your employer
to take care of you.
Sooner or later, folks, the well’s going to run dry. The Bill Gateses
of the world will die off, and there won’t be any new Bill Gateses
to take their place. Whose pockets are we going to dip into then?
Self-reliance is an old-fashioned idea. But in the end, whom do you have
to rely on but yourself? And if that’s true, then doesn’t it
make sense to practice self-reliance on a daily basis?
Gore promised goodies for almost everybody, and he got a bounce in the
polls. What’s worse is that Bush and the Republicans are countering
with some of the same tactics.
Is our republic doomed?
I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who can write a scenario
for how we’re going to turn this around.
And if you are happy with the way things are going, I’d love to read
your thoughts on why it’s good and right that we plunder the pockets
of the rich in order to take care of the rest of us.
Stated differently, why is it right to take income away from the people
who earned it and give it to people who did not?
I’m at dhamrick@TheCitizenNews.com.
Back
to Opinion Home Page |
Back
to the top of the page
|
