“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” – Ronald Reagan
At various times in American history, and world history for that matter, humanity decides that the status quo of government is not working and they come together to switch things up. Revolutions, coups, movements, paradigm shifts are the result… some are bloodless and some cause tremendous destruction. The underlying question we keep revisiting, again and again, is what is the role of government in the lives of the people?
Should we have a king, or a congress? A president, or a prime minister? A representative of the people or a dictator?
Should the government be able to tell us where we can live, or with whom? What we can read or watch on TV? What we’re allowed to eat and drink? Is the government responsible for our safety when it comes to our health, or only when it comes to foreign invasion? If we believe in the validity of taxation at all, do we think we should have a say in how those taxes are spent, and should that say be individual or collective? Do those answers change like the wind depending on which party is in charge this week? Should they?
It’s not a new argument. The nation of Israel went around this mountain, too. They wanted a king like all the other nations had. The prophet Samuel warned them that wouldn’t go as well as they imagined, but humans being humans, they didn’t listen and they got King Saul and a lot of conflict and controversy.
In the U.S., history seems to repeat itself every few generations. Things gets really bad, and people protest and citizen-led movements arise, and legislation gets passed, and a few things get changed. From the 1890s to the 1920s, people were demanding the government do something about corporate corruption. In the 1930s, to try to drag the nation out of the Depression, the government funded programs like the Works Progress Administration. In the 1960s and 1970s came the Civil Rights Act and the still-stalled Equal Rights Amendment.
What the government should be responsible for, the extent of power we’re willing to entrust to our elected representatives, is a source of never-ending debate. What never ceases to surprise me is how quick we are to demand our rights be protected on one hand, and then try to take away the rights of those with whom we disagree, disapprove, or dislike, practically in the same breath.
We can’t have it both ways.