Everybody gets to dance 

A column about life and society in the United States

The mistakes of government

Since the New Deal programs of the Great Depression, Americans have increasingly looked towards Washington and the federal government for answers and solutions to the problems of the United States.  Prior to these programs, the federal government had very little impact on American citizens.  For better or for worse, times certainly have changed.

Today, with the economic turmoil the country is facing, politicians on the national level are routinely asked what they are going to do for Americans.  Democrats and Republicans may disagree on what specifically should be done to address the crisis but both are in agreement that the federal government has a big role to play.   This expectation of the federal government has not always been the norm.  It used to be that people were very distrustful of the federal government.  Our country’s founding was based on a dislike and distrust of strong, centralized governments. The early colonists and most immigrants since have mostly looked at America as an escape from that style of government.  On top of that, our Constitution and the structure of our government, in part, was designed to prevent our federal government from turning into an abusive, all-powerful authority over people’s lives and their individual rights.  I wonder what they would think about the growth of the federal government since.

I may be in the minority but I think the rights of people will be more protected if cuts in the size and scope of the federal government were to succeed. 

My opinion centers around the idea that people are not perfect.  Angels do not run any of the private or public institutions we have in America.   This includes government at all level.  The question then becomes, “If people are flawed and prone to making mistakes, even well-intentioned ones, who do you want to be making more of those mistakes?”  My belief is the country benefits more if the inevitable mistakes are made by the institutions closest to individual citizens.   

If a local government (think school board, town mayor, borough council, etc) makes a bad decision, the effects are somewhat limited.  Even if you live in the small area that is affected, you have a number of options.  You could easily voice your displeasure in local papers that are also read by the local officials.  You can physically attend council or school board meetings and talk face to face with the people you are unhappy with.  You might also give them an earful when you run into them at the local grocery store.  Local government officials know this and therefore have more of an incentive to make better decisions.  If they didn’t, people would be showing up at their house.  Even if things continue to go against your wishes, you still have the option to move to the next town over that does not have the particular policy you oppose.  You can probably keep your job, your kids can keep the same group of friends, and probably still play on the same baseball team.  At the local level, avoiding the mistake is relatively easy.  If more people leave Lansdale for North Wales, for example, eventually Lansdale will have to figure out why so many people are leaving and make adjustments in order to get people to move back or into Lansdale.  Put all this together and you have a strong incentive to make the citizens in the local communities happy.

Now let’s look at a mistake at the state level.  Say the Pennsylvania legislature loses their collective mind and tries something ridiculous like reinstituting slavery.  ( I use slavery because opponents of giving more power to the states often say a return to the days of slavery would result.)  Even though that is complete nonsense, the example is instructive.  If they did try, here’s what would happen.  First, massive amounts of people would leave the state for neighboring states that do not think bringing back slavery is a bright idea.  Next, companies based in Pennsylvania would close up shop and leave the state in huge numbers for fear that their products would be connected to slavery.  Sports teams like the Phillies, Eagles, Flyers, Steelers, and Penguins would leave as well for the same reason.  The point is, a mistake by a state government, although tougher to deal with than at the local level, can be met with a response to avoid the state’s decision.  A state would have to adjust or else lose most of their population over time and therefore all the tax revenue that will go with them.

Now let’s ask the question … What can you do if the federal government screws up?  Leave?  I’m not leaving.  I’m an American.  Complain to your US representatives in Washington?   I can handle a three hour drive to Washington, D.C. but what does a person living in California do?  If the federal government screws something up, there is no realistic way to avoid the mistake.  Therefore, the federal government has much less of an incentive to be careful of the decisions they make.  There is zero chance of me bumping into the President in the express lane at my local Giant supermarket.

People on all sides of the argument agree that there are certain things that only a federal government can do.  It’s also true that Americans who support greater federal involvement have valid arguments of their own.   I just think they should be very careful what they wish for.