The Case for Small Government in the BP Oil Spill

In the first 30-45 days of the BP oil spill there was an outcry from small government conservative governors and legislators who were pleading with the federal government to speed up the response and increase available resources to fight the oil spill. Many people in the media were asking if there was a contradiction in their philosophy. How can one be so opposed to big government, but when things go wrong they scream and yell for government assistance? This is a great question, but it was answered very poorly by those who were asked.

After the recent trend of botched relief/recovery operations by the federal government e.g. Hurricane Katrina and BP Oil Spill it would seem that the government is trending downward in what would be considered its critical functions or core competencies. What is the cause of this decline and what can we do to correct it?

The concept of the "core competency" is something that business has understood for a long time. Essentially, the concept embraces the principle that the further away you get from what you are good at then the less effective you will be at doing anything. This has been proven true by the government and businesses and as of late the gulf coast has suffered the most. The original intent for our government can be summed up best by Thomas Jefferson:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

With government now running health care, parts of the automotive industry, and large swaths of the financial industry, while also eyeing takeovers for newspapers, radio and other media it is clear they have strayed from the government's rightful scope intended by our founding fathers. This new direction puts more strain on already scarce resources and puts people at risk. When lives and livelihoods are at stake in situations like the BP Oil Spill we simply cannot afford a fractured government that lacks focus and competence in its critical functions. When the federal government proves itself to be impotent and restricts state and local government from doing what needs to be done, then it is the responsibility of the states to shrug off the federal government and do what is necessary to protect its citizens. In turn, it is the citizens responsibility to protect those elected officials that choose to take the risk and do the right thing. Force your elected leaders to take a stand and hold their feet to the fire. Whether its your local, state or national leaders don't allow them to continue to make big promises with no results. Don't continue to allow a government that makes mediocrity something to strive for.

In conclusion, the simple truth is that if the government were smaller, it would be more effective during the times we really need it. So the outcry from small government advocates should continue. After all if they had their way with government then most of this pain could be avoided. Our question should no longer be what power and responsibility can we give the government, but what power and responsibility should we give the government?

Groupthink and Pragmatism

Groupthink or the "mob mentality" is a very interesting phenomenon that we see all over the world, but I am particularly interested in the American brand of groupthink. While in other parts of the world groupthink is largely of nationalistic, ethnic or religious origin, American groupthink is different. Granted, we have elements of nationalistic, ethnic or religious groupthink in our country, but the American form of groupthink is highly political and frankly a little puzzling. Traditionally Americans have liked to think of themselves as individualistic and self-reliant, even the most ardent American progressive usually has an individualistic bent, but thats not exactly what I am talking about.

In a nation as vast and diverse as the United States of America I have a hard time understanding that nearly 100% of the votes cast in the last presidential election were cast for one of the two major parties. Do these parties really represent our country? To the outside observer I think the two party platforms would seem to contradict themselves and appear to be bit contrived. So why do we tend to fall into line? Are we intellectually lazy? Do we like the comfort of being part of a larger group and were simply born into a two party system?

On one side of the aisle we have a party that embraces individual or "social" freedoms they don't extend that same tolerance to people of faith who are open about their opposition or disagreement with elements of their platform. When it comes to economic freedom they believe its the government's right and obligation to bend the will of the individual to achieve any stated goal that they deem necessary or beneficial to the collective. They often fuse their interests with large corporations and organizations in a fascistic attempt to achieve their goals.

On the other side of the aisle you have a party that embraces economic freedom and sees private property as an individual's sacred right. However, they don't see personal behavior on the same plane. They believe that morality and "family values" are of the utmost importance for societal health, which necessitates the use of government power to impose their moral will on the population. While they would never acknoledge it or agree, they are essentially seeking to create a Christian Caliphate inside the United States.

So where are their principles? I wish I could say that I cannot understand how people can compartmentalize their views and operate as though principles apply to one viewpoint and not another. 3 or 4 years ago I would have been counted amongst that latter party. So often I talk to people who apply sound reason in every other aspect of their life, whether its their businesses, their relationships, or a sporting activity, but as soon as politics or religion enters the equation they absolutely lose their minds. I think what happens when we stop the groupthink, we discover our principles. It is my assertion that if you stop the groupthink and discover your principles then you will never be happy with our current two party system. In my view the political spectrum is divided into three segments:

Classical Liberals-

A political philosophy that places high value on individual freedom based on a belief in natural rights that exist independent of government. In its pure form, for example in contemporary libertarian thought, it holds that the best government is minimal in scope, providing security, but promoting laissez-faire policies towards morality, religion, the economy, and the rest of social life.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html

Pragmatists-

A movement consisting of varying but associated theories, originally developed by Charles S. Peirce and William James and distinguished by the doctrine that the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences.
http://www.answers.com/topic/pragmatism

Statists-

The theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government.
www.thefreedictionary.com/statism

When you break it down both of our parties are pragmatists, due to their irresistable urge for government action if anything undesirable happens. The problem with this is time and time again throughout history this has led to statism and tyranny in one form or another. So where do you stand? What are your principles?