The purpose of government is to do the things we have to do together that we can’t do on our own
By Michael Laffey
It was reported today in Politico that Bill Clinton attacked the Tea Party during comments to a group of reporters. His comment was as follows,
“We need to understand that one of the things that tends to tilt things toward the Republicans’ anti-government narrative is our country was born out of a suspicion of government,” Clinton said. “King George’s government was not accountable to us. That’s what the Boston tea party was about. When the tea party started out, at least they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom. Then it morphed into something different. If you want to go against that grain, you’ve got to tell people you understand it’s a privilege and a responsibility to spend their tax money, but there’s some things we have to do together. And that’s what the purpose of government is, to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on our own.”
I am confused as to why this was viewed as an attack. I don’t think there is hardly a person in the Tea Party or in the Republican Party who would disagree with this. In fact I think this statement sums up the conservative philosophy.
The problem is that too many politicians and too many liberals don’t view it as a privilege and a responsibility to spend our tax dollars they view it as a right and they spend our taxes on things we can do for ourselves.
Of course Bill Clinton is a very smart guy and he knows this. He also knows that most people in this country if they really think about it agree with this philosophy of government. What he is really doing is misrepresenting what Conservative Republicans and the Tea Party stand for. This is all part of a concerted effort to make us look like the radicals. There is a real danger that this disinformation campaign can work.
We must make it clear to the public that we know there are some things the government should do for us, things like provide police protection, provide for the common defense, maintain roads and infrastructure and protect public health. Though some might disagree I would add provide for universal education and maintain public lands.
Then we need to ask people like Bill Clinton how subsidies to farmers and corporations (like solyndra) fit into his definition. How is something like medical insurance something we cannot provide for ourselves? For that matter, why is retirement something we cannot provide for ourselves going forward? Why should the government subsidize mortgages through Fannie and Freddie Mac? Why does government subsidize a TV station and artists and obscure museum’s in out of the way places. Why why why to thousands, maybe millions of government expenditures.
If the Democrats are going to play this game we need to turn the tables on them.
More from my site
Bill Clinton: NJ voters are stark raving crazy and foam at the mouth
Christie To Speak At Clinton’s Event This Afternoon
Did Bill Clinton Help Jon Corzine Loot MF Global?
The biggest fairy tale ever seen
Bill Clinton was right
Biden Channels Bill Clinton
Peggy Noonan Nails It
Average Some One
Wall Street Journal Poll: Tea Party Movement Gaining Strength
Tea Parties Take Credit For Obama’s Electoral Victories
Well put, Mike. Very well put.
The typical bullshit of demonizing your opponents as “extremists” is what the Democrats are doing to the Tea Party movement. And it’s what turned me off to the Party. That and their subservience to labor unions.
Anyway, the idiots in the mainstream media then jump on. Not out of partisan bias, but out of incompetency. Locally witness the Asbury Park Press demonizing the whole Tea Party movement recently because some John Birch guy was apparently at a local Tea Party meeting in Ocean County. Even if it was true, so what? That doesn’t represent anything except that maybe someone kooky was at some meeting of a local group that may or may not be kooky. Hey, there’s some pretty bizarro people at meetings of key Democratic constituencies too. So what?
The Tea Party is a completely decentralized national movement — and, in fact, the only one of some power I’ve seen in my lifetime that advocates for something beyond just the next election. Usually, movements are always demanding something for themselves now at the expense of the long term interests of the state or nation. This is much different.
I don’t consider myself a Tea Party follower, or a follower of anything except my own conscience. I just call it like I see it.
But it seems to me that it’s quite moderate to state that our public sector debt levels are unsustainable. It’s reasonable to get pissed knowing so much of those expenditures — and revenue loopholes — are made in an effort to win votes, campaign contributions and other support for politicians to get elected so they can stroke their egos. And it’s quite logical to believe that the contradictions and political influences in government means it should be keep as small as possible, and limited to the services and projects we all know the private sector can’t do. (Like building transportation instructure, which the government, of course, even distorts there with requirements like the prevailing wage laws. But I digress.) Anyway, those concepts above are what I think of with the Tea Party, and what I consider a libertarian bent to economic thought. I don’t see anything radical about that. I’d say the vast majority of the country would agree with it, which is what you also suggest.
Anyway, I’m an Independent, and I agree with just about every word you wrote. (One small difference: I’d say that in the area of health care that market-based solutions — like allowing us to purchase health insurance plans across state lines — should be tried first before massive government intervention is embarked upon. If the market failed, then I could see some government intervention as necessary to the general welfare to ensure proper medical care for our citizens. But we’re not even close to that yet. Quite the opposite. Hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down the so-called health care reform law, so we can get serious about this issue.)
Dan Jacobson
Dang,
Another “unpaid advertisement for Dan.”
But, well said Mike.
“…the purpose of government is, to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on our own.” (Clinton Quote)
Don’t you think that is a Left/Right purpose of government? Doesn’t it allow politicians to define the things that must be done together based on their interpretation of what we can’t do on our own?
Do you really believe that the government can do a better job of protecting the public health than private groups? Do you believe that it is necessary to steal private property from Americans to provide for universal education? What other services must be provided at the point of a gun?
Why can’t private groups do a better job in providing services when people cannot do something themselves?
What’s wrong with the Constitutional purpose – ” to secure the blessings of (individual) liberty to ourselves and our posterity”?
When we look at the government’s purpose as a function of individual freedoms to pursue happiness, we come up with a totally different set of government functions.
The Left/Right paradigm always fails when freedom is the goal. The measure should always be the Constitutional test of Tyranny versus Freedom.
Answers to Mr. Baldassari’s questions
*”Doesn’t it allow politicians to define the things that must be done together based on their interpretation of what we can’t do on our own?”
No not if you think about it.
*”Do you really believe that the government can do a better job of protecting the public health than private groups?”
Maybe you are defining public health differently then I am. I am talking about public sanitation, disease control etc.. in other words protecting us from health threats caused by factors we as individuals can not control. Based on history the answer to your question is yes.
*”Do you believe that it is necessary to steal private property from Americans to provide for universal education”
No I don’t and I did not say that, but if you are talking about eminent domain that is not stealing because the property is paid for and is a process enshrined in the Constitution. For the record I do not approve of its use for non public purposes such as redevelopment.
* “Why can’t private groups do a better job in providing services when people cannot do something themselves?”
I would consider that being able to do that for ourselves.
*”What’s wrong with the Constitutional purpose – ” to secure the blessings of (individual) liberty to ourselves and our posterity”
There is nothing wrong with that. But you should go back and read the rest of the Constitution because besides setting forth that broad principle it also gives the Federal Government a whole slew of powers and I refer to specific powers not ones the Courts have extrapolated.
Dan what makes you say a member of the John Birch Society is a kook?
They stand for limited government and more responsibility.
Do you disagree with any of that?
MLaffey…
Thanks for the clarification.
My guess is that we do not have any differences other than semantic. Instead of wasting your time or mine on this, I’d rather debate those who do not believe in freedom.
I guess this is the wrong blog for that?
Are Birchers Kooks? judge for yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
Hmmm.. Looks like Papa Koch made all that money serving the commies then turned on them. Wiki didn’t say anything about old Fred returning all those dirty pinko millions. Looks to me like it’s in the Koch blood to “follow the money”.. I’m sure he would be proud of his boys.
Hey somebody is actually alive and read the dam thing.
But I have to say nothing wrong with taking the Commie money back to the USA. Less they had to spend on Tanks and missiles. Dad Koch actually sounds like my kinda guy.
Not that Wiki is reliable, but even in their biased interpretation of the John Birch Society I don’t see anything kooky.
What don’t you and Dan like about them?