How Governments And Progressives Are Alike
Why do governments exist and why do we tolerate them? I’m sure there are myriad highly scientific explanations, none of which I comprehend. To my oversimplified way of seeing things, governments exist (and are tolerated) because of stupid people. I’m not suggesting one must be stupid to want a government (although it helps). Instead, I am suggesting that governments exist, and are tolerated by the not-so-stupid, because there are so many people who will not or cannot act in a rational fashion. In other words, stupid people. Because of such people, the rest of us institute governments to make rules and laws intended to restrain the stupid.
This is true whether we are trying to protect ourselves from the stupid directly among us or the stupid in some other country that appear to intend us harm. (We will leave the obvious fact that the stupid have taken over our government for another rant.)
So, bottom line, governments exist because of the stupid, ergo, the continued existence of governments depends directly on an everlasting supply of stupid people. In contrast, if the overwhelming majority of people somehow began acting rationally, the need for, and tolerance of, governments would disappear – or at least diminish to the point of insignificance.
Clearly, many of those in government understand this relationship and this is one reason they support the so-called “dumbing down of Americaâ€. It is also why they promote irresponsible behavior and dependence on government. Might it also be why so many of them also promote religious belief?
What then of progressives (or socialists or humanists or altruists or whatever they call themselves at the moment)? Why do these movements exist and why are they tolerated? Again, I’m sure the over-educated can offer many confusing explanations. I think they exist (and are tolerated) because they seem so determined to help the less fortunate, the poor, the downtrodden. While this sounds good to many, especially to the young, the inexperienced and the idealistic, it has a precipitous downside. In order to exist, indeed to grow, the progressive movement demands an everlasting supply of less fortunate, poor and downtrodden. In contrast, the more widespread human prosperity becomes, the less any rational person would tolerate progressivism.
Clearly, most progressives understand this relationship and this is the reason the many supposedly well meaning programs they promote never seem to actually improve the lot of those they presume to help. Instead, they seem to keep those they “help†in a continued state of needing ever more help.
Here is where it gets really good: Most of the less fortunate, the poor, the downtrodden are that way because they are too stupid to help themselves. Voila, a marriage made in hell. By joining forces, the statists and the progressives develop a truly symbiotic relationship. Progressives use governments as the engine they employ to “help†the stupid while governments use progressive programs to help maintain the supply of stupid people.
Of course, this partnership always leads eventually to a societal breakdown with the inevitable riots, wars, famines and epidemics and the massive human toll they exact. But who cares, so long as we can put that bad stuff off until future generations have to deal with them?
Might there be a future generation that will actually learn something or will they merely repeat the cycle in their own way? I think the cycle will be broken, if humanity lasts long enough. History suggests that we learn a little, improve a little, each time through the cycle. So, there is hope for the future, despite the messes we are making today.
That said, I still cannot comprehend why so many are so willing to tolerate, and even promote, unnecessary suffering today when the way out is so simple.
Troy L Robinson
I am less hopeful. It appears to me that each reiteration of the cycle produces progressively stupider people. 🙂
The only way to break the cycle would be to end public schooling entirely, necessitating parents actually involve themselves in choosing who to trust with the awesome responsibility of molding the minds of their children. The Progressives know this, which explains why they maintain total control over the public schooling bureaucracy and teacher’s unions. For an example of what any serious effort to mess with their stupid people factories, look at Wisconsin today. â—„Daveâ–º
The Wisconsin fiasco is indeed a troubling peek into our future. Clearly people who have become accustomed to sucking at the public teat do not like the idea of giving up any of their privileges. I agree with the writer of another blog… the Wisconsin governor’s staff should film the protesters and any who can be positively identified as a teacher who called in sick that day should be fired then charged with defrauding the state.
As for the great cycles of humanity, they seem to me to produce both progressively smarter and progressively stupider people. However, when a society fails, as ours seems determined to do, the stupid lose their support system — many of them will respond by wising up (while the others revert to being mere beasts).
I still do not have a workable solution, but, it becomes more clear to me each day that, while all people might have been created equal, the paths they take immediately after being created lead to all manner of unequal outcomes. To pretend otherwise, then to let yourself be governed based on that pretense, will always lead to a bad ending. Somehow, people must be made to earn (or qualify for) the full benefits of liberty including the voting franchise.
I think that much of this stems from our fairly recent attempts to end racism — a noble idea gone awry. True, racial discrimination and ethnic bigotry are irrational and every effort should be made to teach people why. However, to take this notion to the point where discrimination of any kind is discouraged is insane. It is by discriminating rationally that we improve the state of humanity. If you doubt this, I suggest you stop discriminating between toadstools and mushrooms.
Troy L Robinson
First, we tolerate governments (in any form) because the alternative, anarchy, is not sustainable. If anarchy were to exist, it would only be a matter of time until some form of government filled the vacuum. While the idea that anarchy could persist as some sort of idyllic utopia is certainly attractive, the fact remains that if anarchy were to exist, if everyone were to play the cooperative game, I would defect first in anticipation of someone else doing the same.
As for the government/progressive symbiosis, I look at it more fundementally: I believe that if you accept that all people may be placed in one of three categories, the behavior of all forms of government becomes understable, even predictable. Specifically, the three types of people are those that seek to rule others, those that wish to be ruled, and those that only want to rule over themselves. While the members of these categories have been called many things over time, ultimately they are masters, slaves, and freemen, respectively. The American contribution was that the lattermost might free themselves of the tyranny of the former two. Since the War of Independence, and especially since the Civil War, the “progressives” have taken every opportunity that presented itself to reassert their right to rule over others, in spite of Constitutional prohibitions. Many equate “progressivism” with leftist ideology, however, the traditional left-right paradigm is inappropriate in this context. Both modern parties have elected active “progressives” to office: both Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, and most recently Obama all offer superlative examples of “progressive” politicians intent on expanding the role and power of government.
The American Founders, I believe, felt similiarly about government: they recognized that it was evil, insofar as it represented an infringement of individual rights, but that the absence of government would only invite despotism. Therefore, the just government is the one that comes as close to anarchy as possible, without collapsing into it completely.
Agreed, Steve. Great comment. I particularly found profound:
Welcome aboard, and please stick around. We could use some more thoughtful discussions hereabouts. â—„Daveâ–º
How good to have another participant! Welcome, welcome. You said:
“Many equate “progressivism†with leftist ideology, however, the traditional left-right paradigm is inappropriate in this context. Both modern parties have elected active “progressives†to office: both Roosevelts, Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, and most recently Obama all offer superlative examples of “progressive†politicians intent on expanding the role and power of government.”
I take it a step further. I think one of the greatest deceptions, from a government that does little else but deceive, is the notion that there is some meaningful difference between the 2 major parties. Yes, there are some petty differences — gay marriage, abortion and such, but none of these are critical to the health of the Republic.
For my part, I put politicians, without regard to party, in one of two categories: Those who are willing to stay within the confines of the Constitution (as written) and those who are not.
The GOP began with the president who was the most flagrant violator of the Constitution in our history. With the possible exception of Truman, no Democrat president since 1900 has given a whit about the Constitution. And most of us don’t say a word in protest.
Given human nature, I conclude that having a small government is about as impossible as getting a little pregnant.
Troy
Well, I do have a solution. Rather simple, really. We need to cap spending at all levels of government. If we can cap spending we then force the prioritization of government services and programs. If we are somewhat sly about it, we can provide for an annual cap that does not grow at the rate of our gdp. Thus, over time, with inflation, governments will gradually represent a smaller piece of the economic pie and be forced to concentrate on the highest priority needs of the citizenry, meaning defense and certain limited health and safety activities. Maybe some infrastructure stuff that can’t be privatized. and…maybe to make sure my neighbors crap doesn’t run downhill into my well water, etc.
As some may recall, I am less about theoretical mumbo jumbo and more about real solutions to real problems. I don’t try to kid myself that my solutions will be adopted by whatever group is in power but, at least, I am looking at things as they are and as they could be……realistically….really.