From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Extremism is a healthy thing
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:25:04 GMT

In <Bz5nuB.8vH@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) writes:

>aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>: In <Bytyxs.1AG@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) writes:


>: The society was founded on democratic and republican
>: principles, to be sure, but our Founders were so wise as to see great danger
>: in the prospect of different parties in the government "getting along" to
>: reach "solutions."  They therefore established a system of government in
>: which the interests of the different branches of state power were set against
>: one another. 

>     This is exactly what I meant.  The different parts of government
>must compromise with one another to get anything done.  When the
>President and Congress _don't_ reach some sort of compromise, we get
>what happened under George Bush: NOTHING gets done!

	If nothing would have happened under Bush, then the economy would 
not have been so bad.  Instead, the Republicans and Democrats compromised
to craft the largest tax increase in history.  Sometimes, nothing is preferable
to something.

>: This system followed from the philosophic systems of Locke,
>: Montesquieu, Machiavelli, and others, who understood that if the state is
>: bound to practice internecine warfare (by way of "checks and balances"), then
>: it will have little time left to oppress its subjects.  The more crippled
>: our rulers are, the safer we are.

>I beg to differ with this.  Now it may be true that IF government must
>fight w/ itself, then it will have less time to bother you and me.
>But whatever happened to the idea of a responsible government?  What
>happened to honest people who went to Washington to get the job done,
>and to hell with all these asinine rivalries?


	This reminds me of the story of when Alexander the Great met Diogenes
Laertes, the philosopher who lit his lantern every night, and walked the
streets of Athens in search of an honest man.  Alexander asked the Cynic what
he could do for him.  Diogenes responded, "you can get out of my light."

	I would rather the people in Washington not spend their time worrying
their pretty little heads about us.  Somehow, we seldom benefit from their
selfless devotion to us.


>  I somehow don't think
>the founders of this country would have approved of your ideas (that
>is, they would not have approved of the "internecine warfare" you
>mention)  Now you might argue that these things are bound to happen
>(you know the old saying "Power corrupts, ...")  But I maintain that
>they don't have to.  If you were in Washington and were able to abuse
>your power as many of our current leaders are, would you do it?  I
>like to think I would remember what I was there to do and try to
>remain loyal to the American people, not the Almighty Dollar.
	
	I refer you to the writings of Madison, Father of the Constitution,
and Jefferson, who probably wrote the Declaration of Independence.  Lord Acton
was correct in describing the corrupting influence of power, but John Adams
was more prescient when he fretted over the possibility that the public would
raid the Treasury, which would mean the eventual end of individual liberty.

	
>: 	If this idea seems radical, then it only goes to show that the 
>: American view of government has been transformed in this century.  Ask people
>: twenty, thirty, or forty years your elder if they are as free (here I mean free
>: from the intrusions of government) today as they were when they were your age.
>: If they are not puzzled by the very question, it seeming odd in an age in which
>: men would rather be secure than free, then how could they answer but with a
>: wry No?   
>: 	The "fact" that Americans want "an end to gridlock" can mean little
>: more than that they want a government far different from the one that our
>: Founders conceived.  Admittedly, this is just another way of saying that they
>: want an arrogant, organized state, which is precisely what we now have. 

>     Organized?  We now have an organized state?  I don't think so.
>What with the beauracracy in Washington, I hardly think you can call
>our government 'organized'.  With all the under-handed deals, with all
>the corruption, I don't think it is organized.  When I say I want an
>end to gridlock, I mean just that.  No more perks.  No more cocaine.
>No more bad checks.  No more bullshit partisan arguing about
>unimportant issues.  No more budget spending.  No more deceiving (or
>attempting to deceive) the American people.  Yes this what I want, and
>yes I understand how difficult it will be, but yes I believe we can do it.


	Bureaucracy is organized.  It is not organized to facilitate individual
freedom or enterprise, but it is organized nevertheless.  Why not amend to
your laundry list, "No more arrogance?"  But this would be tantamount to 
writing "No more Federal Government," something which I do not endorse.  
	Jokes aside, the fact is that the public has given the government
the power that it has, including the power to be corrupt with impunity.  Until
we learn to rule ourselves again, this will not change.  Aren't ideas like
"Oversight," "Campaign reform," and "doing away with perks"  merely stanching
the flow of blood without treating the wound?  The crisis is in us, as 
citizens, or rather, in us insofar as we have ceased to be citizens.

	

Andrew Aiken