Big Government, Little Liberty

Heckler - On Limited Government


Click Graphic to Enlarge

Suppose one of the Founding Fathers, let’s say Madison, were suddenly thrust from the grave, full of life, into present-day America with the sole task of assessing whether or not the size and scope of government within contemporary society was in conformance to the founder’s original intent when our nation was born. Would he view the nation’s founding documents, which he helped to author, as having successfully and sufficiently restrained the growth of government over time? Would his assessment of personal liberties in the present be that their preservation has been maintained in accordance to his intent of the past? Would he return to the afterlife satisfied that America had, over the long-haul, lived up to his dreams and aspirations for the fledgling republic he helped to birth? Or, would his assessment leave him with the feeling that he, and the founding fathers, had failed to create a nation that would stand the test of time by remaining free of an intrusive, unwieldy, and overbearing government?

Sadly, the evidence suggests that Madison would be disappointed in the evolution of the nation. His assessment, I suspect, would leave him with a distinct feeling of failure upon concluding that federalism had escaped the bounds, limits, checks and balances that he and others had worked so diligently to integrate into our nation’s framework. He would likely think back to the discourse of his day and conclude that he was wrong, and that in fact, the anti-federalists were correct in their prediction that federalism would eventually fail to contain the growth of the federal government.¹

Where did we go wrong?

According to Dr. Ronald Pestritto, the era of big government, or the “administrative state” as he calls it, came to be in the 1930’s. ² (Kirkpatrick Reader, p 203) Prior to the ascension of Franklin Roosevelt to the presidency following the defeat of Herbert Hoover, government spending had remained low, almost insignificant, for well over 200 years. ³ (See Fig. 1) also (Rachut, p 83) Following the Civil War, sentiment in America began to reject the founder’s key beliefs: the belief in the natural law of human equality at birth; the belief that the sole purpose of government is to secure personal liberty; the belief that people enter society through a social compact, which is the agreement of all to obey society’s laws; the belief in a limited government, powerful private sector, and capitalist economic model; the belief in a domestic agenda that protects personal liberties, strengthens the rule of law, and promotes a moral climate that respects traditional Protestant values; the belief that foreign policy should be focused on a defensive, versus offensive or imperialistic, approach to national defense; the belief that policy must be driven by and originate from locally elected officials working as representatives of their constituencies. ⁴ (Kirkpatrick, p 249 – 253)

The size of government started growing in the 1930’s. Beginning in 1975, following the passage of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, government consistently consumed 20% of the nation’s total GDP, which represents a quadrupling in the size of government over the years preceding Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. (See Fig. 1) The General Welfare and Commerce Clauses have been radically reinterpreted by the courts, and in conjunction with the Sixteenth Amendment, allow for confiscatory taxation of personal wealth, and the redistribution of money based on the whims of federal bureaucrats, all in contravention of the constitution’s right to private property, not to mention natural law. ⁵ (Kirkpatrick, p 267) If we believe that the preservation of property is “the end of government”, as Locke wrote, then we can only believe that government has failed, and has itself now become a detriment to the right of private property rather than its protector. ⁶ (Kirkpatrick, p 274) Even though collectivism has failed the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, progressives advocate for the nationalization of private industry, not on the basis of its proven superiority (which does not exist), but rather merely on its advancement of utopian ideals. ^{7, 8} (Kirkpatrick, p 297) The federal government has taken over major privately owned automotive and financial corporations, and a minority of progressives and socialists are advocating the nationalization of the entire healthcare industry, which makes up 1/6 (16% of GDP) of the U.S. economy. ⁹ Progressivism engenders a rapacious entitlement mentality with an incrementally larger and more ravenous appetite for the wealth of others, and as government becomes the nation’s primary philanthropic arm, personal benevolence and altruism withers in the aloofness of the welfare state. ¹⁰ (Kirkpatrick, p 243)

Madison’s assessment would be grim. The turn to progressivism in the 1930’s, he would certainly agree, has cost Americans their liberties and rights. The ‘new’ republic in which we now live is closer in reality to the utopian vision of Plato than the refuge of liberty envisioned by our nation’s founders. ¹¹ (Kirkpatrick, p 277 – 289) The Machiavellian approach to defense, which holds government’s highest priority to be the protection of liberty through deterrent munitions accumulation and aggression response readiness, has largely been exchanged for priorities of appeasement, disarmament and the downsizing of the military, all of which expose the nation to harm at the hands of aggressors. ¹² (Kirkpatrick, p 225 – 226)

It is hard to believe that the founders ever imagined a federal government that would consume more than 5% of GDP. During Madison’s posthumous and hypothetical assessment of present-day America, when he would learn that current federal spending is in excess of 20% of GDP, he would be concerned, I believe, that the nation was on a trajectory toward failure. If the size of the federal government can quadruple in 70 years, Madison’s logical conclusion would be that it could again quadruple over the next 70 years. In 1797, Madison thought it inconceivable that federal spending would ever routinely surpass 20% of GDP, within the framework of checks and balances he had helped to create. Is it inconceivable to think, then, that government spending could equal 80% of GDP by 2080, and would we still be able to call ourselves free people?

Sources

1. Anti-federalists, Wikipedia, retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifederalist

2. Pestritto: “The Birth of the Administrative State,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 203)

3. Rachut: American Vision and Values, Bellevue Press, 2008, (p 83)

4. West and Schambra: “The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 249 - 253)

5. Pilon: “The Purpose and Limits of Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 267)

6. Locke: from The Second Treatise on Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 274)

7. Kristol: “Utopianism, Ancient and Modern,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 297)

8. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization#United_States

9. Health Care in the United States, Wikipedia, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_health_care_system

10. Messmore, “ A Moral Case against Big Government,” Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 243)

11. Plato: from The Republic, Book V, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 277 - 289)

12. Machiavelli: from The Prince, Chapters X, XIV-XIX, XXV, Kirkpatrick Reader, Bellevue Press 2008, (p 225 - 226)

13. Historical Spending and GDP, Retrieved January 9, 2009, at: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php

14. American History Timeline, Retrieved on January 9, 3009, at: http://www.animatedatlas.com/timeline.html