From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: What We Have (was Re: Why Vote?)
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 05:07:56 GMT


In article <1992Nov3.160951.3336@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp
(Gary Coffman) writes:

>Our form of government was set up to temper the madness of
>the mob while still giving the people a voice in their
>government.

I think that's about right.  The people also have the right
(arguably, an obligation) to dissolve and replace an unjust
government.  That too was built in.

>Our Constitution was set up to protect individuals from
>excesses of the government [...]

Among its many purposes, I think you mean.

>It was made deliberately hard for government to do things.
>Our founders felt strongly that the best government was the
>least government and they set up the system so that it would
>be in gridlock most of the time so that it couldn't meddle
>too much or too quickly in the affairs of private persons.

I think it unlikely the founders had even a glimmer of an
idea about conditions like those we have now.  I think it's
true they did not design in what we would call speedy
responsiveness today.  But it *was* responsive on the time
scales they were familiar with, when messages had to be
carried by hand in matters of days and weeks and months.

Although it still seems appropriate the our government
should deliberate carefully and do no more than is required
to assure freedom for all our citizens, much of what is
subsumed today under the rubric of "best is least" and
"that's what the founders had in mind" is in fact historical
revisionism.  

We can be *very* sure they did not have in mind instant
worldwide communication, pollution on this scale,
populations of 5.5 billion and more, mass production, mass
media, the enormous confluence of cultures, or any of a
number of conditions that today require us to have forms of
government and civil administration unlike anything they
could possibly have entertained.

>I like that.

The past was a simpler time.  Lots of people like it.  But
we cannot live there.

>Our government has grown altogether too activist over the
>last 50 years.  We need more gridlock to let things calm
>down a bit.

As any number of civil uprisings and ongoing urban problems
show, gridlock does not lead to calming down.  On the
contrary, it leads to disaster.

Nor would I say it's the activism of the government that is
the source of our problems.  I think it's something else.

>The most dangerous excesses are now conducted by the
>unelected bureaucracies created as independent agencies of
>the Congress.  The power to create and enforce regulations
>with the de facto force of law has been granted to these
>bodies in direct contravention of the intent of the
>Constitution and our founders.

While I agree that the excesses of the bureacracies are
evils that must be dealt with effectively, and while I agree
the thrust of the Constitution's protections are subverted
by some aspects of the present bureaucracies, I think your
explanation is historically incorrect and politically
inadequate.

Regulatory agencies are not _ipso facto_ bad.  There are
legitimate roles for civil administration and for such
adjuncts to the authority of the government.  And the
Congress does not bear the entire responsibility for the
present mess, either.  The Executive and even the Judiciary
are both complicit and proactive in creating and maintaining
the problems we have.  And it all happened with our
connivance, of course.

The problems are less that such bureaucracies exist (they
have to, we really coudn't get along without them) but more
the *particular* circumstances of their existence: how they
got there, who they benefit *primarily*, to whom they are
accountable, what happens in the event of error or
malfeasance, and so forth.

If you counter that things are wildly out of control, I will
certainly agree, but abolishing these governmental functions
is in essence impossible: our world is simply too
complicated for that.  Rather, we need to get our civil
service, like our executive, legislative, and executive
branches of government, under our control, so that all these
parts are ultimately accountable to the electorate.

Your earlier point about having centralized functions that
should remain under local administration is pertinent here,
of course, but we must also grant that centralized control
is entirely appropriate to certain issues -- civil rights
would be one, and there are many others -- that are of
national scope.

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
<>  <>  <> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <>  <>  <>
Newsgroups: soc.motss