The modern American Liberal model just doesn’t work and its failure has very little to do with the political platforms contained therein.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with government providing certain things for its citizens, but there is a problem with the practicality of how that gets done.
Democrats don’t listen.
The problem is the American Liberal model calls for a massive government, taking control out of the hands of the people from whom that government was granted authority.
By ignoring the pillars of democracy itself, Democrats have decided they don’t have to listen.
But our democratic system is based on electing a person to represent a group of people. We elect them not only to serve our best interest, but also, in some cases, to make judgments on their right.
(If you’re getting confused with Democrat versus democratic, good. So are they.)
We don’t have a system where the people vote on everything because that would be cumbersome, and frankly because we shouldn’t trust the average person to vote on something they don’t truly understand.
However, the bigger government gets the less power we have since we only elect government officials every few years and federal-level decisions are made far from the local political level.
Unfortunately, the wants and needs of the average
peon person are nearly 100% local.
The more responsibilities government has, the harder it is for our voice to be heard because politicians simply don’t hear it enough, nor does a local representative have enough power to represent his or her constituent properly (You try being 1 of 435).
smarter conservative model, the government does only what it must do and allows the market to dictate the rest. The fewer items the government handles, the more each voice counts in a political discussion.
Put simply: the government has too much
corruption responsibility for us to expect it to function in our best interest. It’s impossible for our elected officials to possibly comprehend every piece of legislation and vote appropriately given the constraints of time and information (There were politicians admitting they don’t even READ some of this stuff before they vote on it).
American government in our modern society is just trying to do too much.
There is nothing freer, nothing more full of liberty, nothing whereby our voices are heard to the greater degree than letting the market make a decision.
Technology like the internet, social media, even television has made information flow between citizens better and easier than ever.
Intuitively, in the market place of ideas, the easier it is to add ideas to the marketplace, the more likely that place is to produce the best ideas.
Our government was not designed to be the arbiter of all things, the marketplace was.
The government has two main responsibilities that, had the average liberal been paying attention in his civics class (instead of smoking pot) he’d know: Provide for the common defense and regulate resources we can’t regulate on our own.
The defense part is pretty easy. There’s a reason the government handles police, military, fire personnel etc. It’s the government’s job to make sure its citizens are safe.
The second part seems to be the part where Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, disagree most.
What are resources we can’t regulate on our own?
A few are simple: air, water, roads. They’re things everyone needs and the market couldn’t otherwise properly handle without being a potential threat it the citizens.
Without getting too far inside baseball, government works because of what political philosophers like to call a social contract, whereby the citizens give up some measure of autonomy in return for the above protections by the government.
Remember, we lived for literally thousands of years without government.
Taxes are part of that autonomy we give up. The government must have some means to pay for the protection and regulation otherwise the government has no real power.
This is the part where Democrats really seem to miss the point. The government only exists because we allow it to exist. People are what make up a democratic government.
We elect them to represent us. Too many politicians think it’s the other way around and don’t listen when we speak.
That’s the only explanation when politicians agree to spend an exorbitant amount of tax payer dollars on things that aren’t popular, like a health care bill that a significant majority of Americans don’t like, and a plurality actually want repealed.
That’s undemocratic. Yet the Democrats are trying to do it (see the irony here?)
(Democrats like to have it both ways and talk about the continued funding for an unpopular war, even though when we went to war there was near unanimous support for it in the legislature and public opinion.)
It’s not a politicians job to decide whether his constituents are right or wrong. Representative democracy was created so that every area, every demographic, every person would have a voice and that decisions would be made based on the summation of those voices.
We elect people to be our voice at the table. In some ways, a politician’s job is like a defense lawyer: even if we’re guilty, they have to do their best to defend us.
In the mid-1990’s under a Republican Congress and President Clinton a mass of legislation was passed as part of a “Contract with America.”
Some of it worked, some of it didn’t, but it was democracy at its height.
The Republicans created a referendum on a group of policies basically saying, “This is what we’re going to run on, and then we’re going to do it. If you want us to do it, vote for us.”
That’s exactly how this is supposed to work.
The more recent version was nearly as astonishing as the Republicans, along with the infusion of Tea Party energy won a decisive victory in 2010, taking back the House of Representatives.
Since then, the contents of that contract have been nearly universally implemented despite the fact that the Republicans don’t control the Senate.
Every aspiring politician runs on some platform. Conservatives are just more likely to keep promises because they understand the way government is supposed to work: by and for the people.
The only real promise soon-to-be-former President Obama has kept is that he’s not George W. Bush (which, coincidentally, was the largest contributing factor to him getting elected).
Spending ungodly amounts with no positive returns is not being a good shepherd of taxpayer dollars. That’s not holding up your end of the social contract.
If you believe that the way to deal with excessive spending is by taxing more, then it proves you missed the point of government. If you can’t give value back to the people who’s money you’ve been given, you’re in violation of the social contract.
And if you can’t be a good shepherd with the money you’re currently getting, on what planet does it make sense to give you more?
When 50% of people don’t pay income tax and more than 1 in 7 people is on food stamps, we have a nation of people more interested in
playing X-box taking than giving.
That’s not how our government was meant to be run. You’re supposed to be in charge of providing for yourself, that’s life.
The government’s responsibility is simply to make sure other people don’t infringe on your rights in providing for yourself.
Conservative ideology is rooted in the idea that people, not a ruling class should be making decisions.
If you like government, you’re more inclined to believe the government should have more authority and more power. How can you not believe that? If you like something, you’re going to want more of it.
But liberals in America have failed to live up to the social contract, failed to live up to the responsibilities we’ve given them because they’ve just stopped listening to the people who gave them their power in the first place:
It’s our fault as a nation for believing in the urban legend of a liberal Utopian society, but we have a chance now to right that wrong, to return the power to those who rightfully hold it.
That’s true American democracy.