AlterNet.org

Posted by Roy Tottie at 12:32 pm
February 12, 2010

The One About The United States Must Be More Than The Sum Of Its Parts.

A reply by Conservative blogger The Bobo to The One About Once We “Take The Power Back” From Government What Do We Do With It?, got me thinking.

“Actually, what the majority of us real conservatives mean is that we want the government limited again back it its constitutional limits and give the power back to the states. The 10th Amendment is very clear that all powers not specifically granted to Congress in the constitution fall to the states or the people of the states. The power belongs locally – not federally. All these large governmental programs (Medicare, SCHIP, unemployment, welfare, education, health insurance, etc etc) are unconstitutional. Under the 10th Amendment – the people of the states decide what programs they want and whether or not to fund them. The way our government currently works – the federal government forces the states to take these programs on. Our constitution has been turned upside down. So – when we conservatives say we need to take back the power – we mean – follow the constitution.”

The above statement is intelligent and concise. It also gives the clearest foundation for why Progressives have in the past, and continue, to reject Conservatism as a philosophy.

Here’s the thing, the idea of an incredibly limited central aka Federal government was a grand idea in the late 17, early 1800’s. But it was in idea that even then was open for debate. How limited, what is necessary for the Federal level to regulate, what was best left to the states, etc. Prior to the twentieth century however, much of the debate was academic. Towns were largely worlds unto themselves. It was perfectly possible for someone to be born, live, and die within the boundaries of the town where they were born without ever having to go any further than the next town over at most. In those days when people existed in such isolation it made sense to give the states most of the power. In addition the idea of people in one area having plenty while people in another area had little was not viewed in the same way as it is viewed by many people today. It’s not that people were hard hearted, it’s just that they really were not as aware of the needs of people in far away places, and even if they were there was not a lot that could be done about it. Also the nature of business and agriculture was very different. A more common sense approach was taken regarding the things that were essential to life. Food was grown locally and if there was surplus it was traded. But the idea of taking everything grown and exporting it would have been considered ludicrous. Ultimately the interpretation of the Constitution back then was sensible in context of the times.

Times however have changed. Interstate commerce, travel, and communication have made this into a truly united states. We are no longer isolated in the way we once were. In light of these fundamental truths I do not see how we can continue to use an eighteenth century interpretation of the Constitution when we are a decade into the twenty first. Cities and states are no longer self sufficient. Specialization in agriculture has become the norm. Because of this, the individual states have become increasingly interdependent. But beyond the practical level, there is a moral level to consider. What justification is there for allowing people in one state to go without food, and shelter, and health care just because of where they happen to live? The idea that some should suffer because of a happenstance of birth, while others enjoy plenty, even more than they need is frankly offensive. Even more offensive are those who wish to invoke some kind of “natural” order. As if we were still the simple creatures from which we’d evolved. Huddled in caves, shivering at the sound of a wild beast in the night. The moment we tamed the first animal, crafted the first tool, first put our hand on a plow, we made a bold statement. We refused to be wholly subject to the dictates of nature. We asserted that we would craft our own destiny. To now hide behind God, fate, nature, or the invisible hand of the market is a supreme act of moral cowardice. When a mother and her children huddle together in an alley to keep warm, it is not nature that is to blame. When people have to choose between medical care, and food, the fault lies not with God. It is we who must shoulder this responsibility. We who must see to the well being of our fellows.

There are those who would proclaim that such thinking is over simplification. That most people do not wish to let their fellow beings suffer deprivation and want. But that charity is the solution. People giving of their own free will. That’s a fine sounding idea. And to be certain there is nothing wrong with voluntary charitable giving. The problem however is that even the most philanthropic of souls in times of plenty may become more miserly than Scrooge when they feel that the style of living to which they have become accustomed is threatened. To leave people to depend upon the largesse of others for their well being is to leave them in a constant state of fear and agitation, that the moment there is a downturn, be it minor or significant, in the fortunes of their benefactors, that they will be left to fend for themselves. This is why it is essential to have an unassailable safety net. A means to make certain that no matter what might come, no one suffers hunger, homelessness, or sickness. The best means, perhaps the only, to accomplish that is through the government. But even if there are other better solutions, they must be solutions born of the times in which we live. To continue to insist on applying 18th century solutions to the challenges of the 21st can lead to nothing but needless suffering for countless numbers.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!