Cashing
in on Government
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell,
Jr.
Until
the 1990s, lots of folks down South still thought of the Democrat
Party as just one political alternative, not as the power-lusting,
junta-in-waiting we see today. After eight years of misrule and
unending lies, and now the attempt to employ politicized courts
to bypass the Constitution and impose an unelected president, you
have to wonder: is there nothing these people won’t do to grab or
retain power? Even more profoundly, you have to wonder why they
are fighting so hard.
In
their respective platforms, Gore and Bush are not completely different–much
to the GOP’s discredit. Both parties promise to expand government
and even where Bush is better, he is unlikely to follow through.
But a Gore victory means the continuation of power for the same
crew that has been in charge for eight years. As just one measure
of how far public confidence in them has dropped, consider that
when Clinton’s own lawyer turned up dead in his apartment the other
day, many people, including elected lawmakers, suspected foul play.
To
be sure, some old-time conservatives in the South still vote straight-ticket
Democrat because they recall that the Republicans, after invading
and conquering the Southern states, ran a military dictatorship
from 1865-1877. In those days, the Democrats had their doubts about
the merit of despotism. But much has changed. Now, it is they who
are running the new Reconstruction. And the means they are using
is not the military (certainly not the military) but pressure
groups and the courts.
But
why is retaining the presidency so important to the Democrats? It’s
one thing to be disappointed at the loss of an election; that comes
with the territory. And while it’s true that the presidency is a
big deal, the idea of the American system is that people compete
for office but not everyone can win. Besides, they’ve already had
eight years in office. Enough is enough.
Why
engage in this bloody fight to the death at the expense of all morality
and sense of fair play? Is George Bush such a threat to the Left
that they would unleash every weapon in their arsenal, including
legions of aspiring journalists, to destroy him? Is Al Gore so much
beloved by them that they will do anything to put him in charge?
Surely
not. So what is it that the Left fears from a Gore loss? In a phrase,
the end of the gravy train. Seeking to further enlighten the rest
of us, a Democrat attorney Cleta Mitchell wrote these words in the
Wall Street Journal (November 20, 2000):
"The
fundamental motivation for Democrats is their understanding that
winning control of government is tied to paychecks, jobs, government
grants, public money for private groups and companies, government
contracts, union bargaining advantages, rules by which trial lawyers
bring lawsuits, and on and on. The use of government to feed friends
and starve enemies is something Democrats know instinctively. Winning
elections means getting or keeping a livelihood."
Sounds
like a third world country, but we shouldn’t be surprised. While
the American economy and culture are highly advanced, the American
system of government is, in its bare essentials, no different from
any other government on the globe, now or at anytime in history.
The only difference is that there is a lot more cash to pass out.
Government
anywhere and everywhere is always about gaining at the expense of
others. There has been no advancement in this base reality. We can
change the definitions and claim that we are governing ourselves
because we vote. But that doesn’t change the core moral problem
of government, which is that everything it has, it has via theft.
Not one penny of its $2 trillion budget comes from revenue gained
on a voluntary basis.
Expansive
government divides society into two castes, those who give up their
money to the State and those who take money from the State. In order
to the keep the system going, those who give must vastly outnumber
those who receive. This was true in the earliest days of the nation-state
and it remains true today. The presence of voting, or what remains
of the restraints imposed by the Constitution, change nothing about
the essential operation.
When
you read the founding documents, you find massive concern about
factions. Today, political mavens think that they feared partisanship
and would thus endorse what is called bipartisanship. This is ridiculous.
By factions, the founders meant groups of people at war with each
other over who will control the public purse.
Their
solution to this problem was not to abolish differences of opinion
but to keep government small, so the stakes of gaining power would
be low. You limit the power of faction by limiting the scope of
government. All the mechanisms we learn about in civics class–the
separation of powers, the bill of rights, the electoral college–were
instituted as means toward that overriding goal.
But
this vision has been betrayed. And you don’t have to be a political
scientist to see how the factions break down. In the current American
context, the Gore vote represents those on the take from government,
just as the Bush vote represents those who are paying the bills.
If
you look at the typical voter in each camp, you gain an understanding
about the makeup of each caste. Investors, private-sector employees,
and middle-class families favored Bush by more than 10 points. Government
employees, non-investors, welfare recipients, and unionized workers
went with Gore. The famous county-by-county map showing the geography
of voting patterns displays an America dominated by the payers,
while the takers congregated in large coastal cities went with Gore.
The
only way someone like Gore can get elected is to rally the tax-eaters
in the major population areas, who, together with left-wing ideologues
and others living off the system, form a localized majority. The
way for someone like Bush to fight back is to rally the rest of
the country against them. If Bush had done more of that, and less
pandering to gain the approval of the media, he wouldn’t be having
the trouble he is today.
This
election has highlighted this deep division like no other. But the
solution to the problem is more complicated than simply electing
Republicans, who can sound fabulous in opposition but inevitably
sell out once in office. The solution is to end the system of looting,
graft, payoffs, and redistribution that is inherent in any system
of government, and is wildy conspicuous in our government. That
requires that we not only dislodge would-be dictators from public
life, but also dismantle the machine they are seeking to control.
November
25, 2000
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He
also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.com.
Copyright
© 2000 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|