The Mythos of Change and Big Government in America

Challenging the Notion that Economic and Social Advancement Requires a Big Government

Today, one of my progressively-minded academic peers was asked to defend his support of big government. "Society has changed significantly since the signing of the Constitution," he remarked. "The Founding Fathers never imagined how large and complex our nation would become, and we need a large government to help manage the needs of a large and complex society." His sophistry continued, "Events that led us to the necessary growth of government include: the Industrial Revolution, Great Depression, World Wars, Iron Curtain, Recession, Information Technology boom, and 9/11, just to name a few. These events could only be addressed with a very large government, and have even made us realize that government should be even larger to help protect us from repeat incidents."

Alas, Stalin would be proud.

I understand that many believe that economic and social evolution mandated the emergence of big government in the US, and that the state has enlarged its scope of influence over time in relative proportion to increasing social complexities. But, think about it for a moment. On what basis is the belief that this alleged dynamic symbiosis between big government and complex society known to be true, or more importantly, productive? I understand that people believe it, but I don't understand why they believe it.

We know that government started growing in the 30's, but how do we know that growth was essential to the health of the nation? How do we know that progress would not have still occurred in the absence of a big government? Further, how do we know that big government did not actually slow progress and weaken our nation? What evidence exists to support the assumption that our nation is better off with a big government, and is it possible that big government has done irreparable harm to our country?

Perhaps, one would argue that no evidence exists to the contrary, that our nation has never weathered periods of precipitous change in the absence of a big government, to which I would earnestly object. Was America significantly more complex in 1930, than it was in 1790? Indeed, it was infinitely more complex in 1930. Was social and economic progress made in that 140 year period prior to 1930? Without a doubt, it was.

It is true that we are more complex in 2010 than we were in 1930. But at the same time, we were more complex in 1930 than we were in 1790. Yet, the social complexities and industrial quickening that characterized the 1800's were all managed with a very small government that consumed less than 5% of GDP.

Some argue that the depression forced the growth of government in the 1930's. But, they fail to remember the depression of 1873, which was a major global economic crisis that America navigated with a very small government that never exceeded 5% of GDP. Moreover, the 1873 depression ended in 1879, and was about 5 years shorter than Roosevelt's depression of the 1930's. (I might point out that Roosevelt's depression was managed by a big government, and lasted significantly longer.)

Some cite the industrial revolution as an impetus for bigger government. But does that really makes sense, considering the industrial revolution ended in 1850, eighty years prior to the government's leap toward societal dominance beginning in 1930?

To say that contemporary events are somehow special and different from the historical events of our forefathers, different to the point that they require the adoption of a big government with which to manage them, is an odd notion to me. Although I would never personally suggest this, others might even be inclined to label such a belief as a bit arrogant. Truly, each generation of people view the historical events of their lives, and of the decades preceding their lives, as unique and of greater importance than the more distant events of previous centuries. But in reality, the invention of the wheel had no greater impact on the Neanderthals than did the invention of the steam engine on the Early Modernists. The steam engine had no greater impact on the Early Modernists than did the invention of the microchip on Generation X. The invention of the microchip may feel more momentous in its impact on society because we have personally seen its influence on our nation, our economy, and our culture. But in reality, the wheel, the steam engine and the microchip have all impacted their respective societies equally, and the introduction of one into historical currents required no greater scope of bureaucratic governance than did the other.

So, why do people believe that economic and social advancement and growth is predicated on the existence of big government? What evidence exists that leads one to believe that big government is necessary now, but was unnecessary in 1790 when the Constitution was signed?

Well, no one will ever be able to provide such evidence, because it does not exist. And although there is a much more compelling body of evidence to support a small government, the system will go on perpetuating the false idea that big government is necessary to manage the nation's growth and change, which is a load of malarkey.

A Gen-Xer Reflects on Roe v. Wade and the Abortion Issue

Heckler - On Abortion

In the Penumbra of a Penumbra

On April 22, 1996, a young woman by the name of Giana Jessen testified before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.”¹

Giana is one of many in our society whose life was almost lost to abortion. On the morning of April 6, 1977, Giana’s 17 year-old mother had been administered the drugs that precipitate the abortion process. As is often the practice, the chemical was administered ahead of time since several hours are required before the unborn child will respond and subsequently abort. The abortionist was not scheduled to arrive in the clinic until 9 am, but to the surprise, and perhaps horror, of everyone present that morning, Giana’s mother gave birth at 6 am, before the abortionist had arrived, and before the life of the child could be snuffed out by the abortionist. ²

Today, Giana, who is plagued with cerebral palsy as a result of the saline used in the abortion process, advocates against the barbarity of the practice in our society. ³ She is by all measures a very special person, one who defied a death-wish christened upon her by her mother, and fully sanctioned by law, and society by extension.

Her very existence raises many questions. But the most troubling question is: how can life occur from a procedure justified on the premise that life does not exist in the ‘clump of tissue’ that is being aborted? If the object of the abortion is devoid of life, as many claim, how is it that a living, breathing child, an ‘aborted’ baby, laid helplessly crying in an abortion clinic in 1977? The answer, in short, is that Jessen’s existence proves beyond doubt that a fetus is full of life. Further, to arrive at the conclusion that a child within her mother’s womb does not possess life requires deductive fantasia and the willing suspension of disbelief.

The historical pathway leading us to such an inconceivable place was long and winding, and society knew it had arrived on January 22, 1973 when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which essentially legalized a woman’s decision to abort by protecting it as a right to privacy under the fourteenth amendment. ⁴ The consequences of the decision have been severe and far-reaching. The practice has not only destroyed millions of lives full of potential, but it has also devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of woman who are silently afflicted with an oppressive and debilitating burden of guilt.

An understanding of philosophical ideas can often be found in the most unusual places. Oddly enough, one such place is the effulgence of a lamp, or, for that matter, any source of luminosity that brightens the world around us. There, under illuminant rays, clarity of sight occurs. The text of a book or subtle nuance of art is perceived with ease. In contrast, when the light ceases, the absence of luminosity gives way to darkness, wherein nothing is perceptible. Then, there is a middle space, a place that is neither brightly lit, nor utterly dark. Here, things are visible, but only partially so. Objects are seen, but details are imperceptible. We can see that a book is there, but cannot read its title. We can see that art is there, but cannot determine its subject. This space that exists away from the direct luminosity of light, yet not engulfed in darkness, where things are seen in the dimness, but not fully known, is called the penumbra. ⁵

Such areas of diminished visibility exist not only rooms, halls, and streets, away from lamps and streetlights, but also in the interpretation of the law. When a law lacks clarity on the existence of rights, and the interpreting judiciary is consequently unable to render judgment based on the text of the law alone, she may conclude a right is implied by other rights which are clearly stated in the text of the law. These unstated rights are said to exist in the penumbra of those rights that are textually explicit. ⁶

For example, let’s say that the text of a hypothetical constitutional amendment guarantees the right of a person to sing. The state of Colorado passes a law that prohibits humming. A person living in Colorado challenges the law against humming, and the case goes to the Supreme Court. The ruling of the court would likely protect humming as a constitutional right that exists in the penumbra of the right to sing, even though the right to hum is not explicit in the text of the constitution.

Justice Harry Blackman wrote in the opinion of the court in Roe v. Wade, “Appellant would discover this right [of privacy] in the concept of personal ‘liberty’ embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras.” ⁷ In other words, Justice Blackman concluded that a woman’s right to an abortion was in the penumbra of the right to privacy, which is in the penumbra of the right to personal liberty as explicitly provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment. That’s right. Justice Blackman ruled that the right to abort a baby is in the penumbra of a penumbra, and that this right, which exists in the penumbra of a penumbra, supersedes an unborn baby’s right to life.

No reasonable person would argue the right to life after birth, but there is no language that explicitly protects an unborn child’s right to life. Many argue that an unborn child does not possess life at all, while an equal or greater number argue that life is, without dispute, present in the womb. Simply put, the question of whether or not the unborn have life has no consensus, and thus remains unanswered by society. Even Justice Blackman acknowledges this inconclusiveness in Roe v. Wade, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” ⁸ This statement could arguably be the most significant ‘cop out’ in the history of mankind.

Justice Blackman, rather than doing his job and addressing the question of life in the womb, chose to ignore it altogether. If a room full of scientists were asked if life exists in the womb, the opinion would likely be split. Some would argue that life begins after the child is born, others would argue that life begins at conception, and others would likely argue that life begins at some arbitrary point during the pregnancy such as the beginning of the second trimester. But one thing is certain, none of the scientists in our hypothetical situation would unanimously agree. It tells us that there is a possibility life does not exist in the womb, bur it also tells us that there is a possibility that life does exist in the womb. The possibility alone that life exists in the womb substantiates its protection, even in the absence of consensus. What will the Court have to say if “those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology” ⁹ should one day arrive at the conclusion that the womb does in fact hold life? How will we explain the deaths of millions of babies to future generations?

In fact, this conclusion is beginning to become a reality, as medical professionals leave the abortion industry behind, and tell of harrowing eyewitness accounts of life and death in the abortion clinics. A former Planned Parenthood Director gave one such testimony, "The doctors would remove the fetus while performing hysterotomies and lay it on the table, where it would squirm until it died… They all had perfect forms and shapes. I couldn't take it. No nurse could." ¹⁰

Lifeless clumps of tissue do not squirm, nor do they die, and these facts no philosopher can deny.

John Locke said it best in 1690, “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.” ¹¹

Today, criminal law precludes capital punishment for convicted murderers if any doubt of guilt is present, but the same consideration is not extended to the unborn in the absence of certainty that life exists in the womb. Deference to life is provided for murderers if their guilt is in doubt, while deference to death is provided to unborn children because their life is in doubt. We err on the side of caution for guilty murderers, but not for the innocent unborn. At a bare minimum, is the unborn child’s right to life not ‘in the penumbra’ of the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution? No matter how it’s spun, the logic that led to the final ruling in Row v. Wade can only be described with one word: bizarre.

Sources

1. Giana Jessen testimony, abortionfacts.com, at: http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Supreme Court of the United States (Blackman), Opinion of the Court, Section V, Roe v. Wade, at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

5. Dictionary.com, entry: penumbra, at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penumbra?o=100074

6. Dictionary.com, under Legal Dictionary, entry: penumbra, at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penumbra?o=100074

7. Supreme Court of the United States (Blackman), Opinion of the Court, Section V, Roe v. Wade, at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Francke, Linda Bird, The Ambivalence of Abortion, (New York: Laurel) 1982, (p 52-53)

11. Locke, John, The Second Treatise on Government – Chapter II, from the Kirkpatrick Signature Series Reader, Bellvue Press, (p. 111)