Danger of Anti-government rhetoric from OWS, conservatives alike

Conservatives don’t want to hear it, but they have something in common with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Both of them have a tendency to use potentially dangerous anti-government rhetoric.

Of course, there is an enormous chasm of difference between what each side wants from government. On the other hand, both see government as part of the problem.

OWS’s solution is, inexplicably, more government. Direct Democracy. All you had to do was go shopping on Black Friday to know direct democracy, where the people have a much louder voice, is not a better solution.

Conservatives, of course, want less government, although that would, as a result, give people a louder voice. Taking the power out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, means putting it back into the people.

Power is like energy, it is neither created nor destroyed, simply moved.

The danger of OWS’ rhetorical use is obvious. The tyranny of the majority, particularly an undereducated one, is just as dangerous, if not more, than a powerful albeit corrupt government.

Conservative’s message is less government. Government as the problem, getting in the way of business.

Both messages undermine the power the government possesses. In some ways, there is an inherent good to raising questions about the legitimacy of power.

A profound and very real danger also lurks beneath the surface. If we don’t trust our government, which we don’t, it can’t be effective.

That same government can’t be trusted unless it can demonstrate its efficacy.

Chicken, meet the egg.

There isn’t an underlying or natural good to any size government, or even a governmental structure for that matter. Democracy isn’t inherently better than a benevolent dictator in every conceivable situation.

Thomas Hobbes  and other political philosophers have argued this for centuries.

Unfortunately, our current government, provides a case study on why representative democracy is not an inherent good.

You know what works, what is inherently good? A government working for the benefit of its people.

Big government is bad only because history has shown us that a system full of bureaucracy breeds waste, inefficiency and corruption.

Big businesses run our government because we don’t hold them accountable for their actions, business and government alike.

When 30% of people vote and they can’t get the job done when they’re the most politically engaged and educated group in the country, how would direct democracy be any better?

Anti-government sentiments only breed disillusionment from citizens. Why do I want to participate in a system that isn’t working?

The average person doesn’t see that the only way to change the system is by voting for it, by advocating for it, by working for it.

I guess I shouldn’t expect anyone to want to work for anything. That’s what the OWS people are bitching about. They don’t want to work (they just want to bang on their drums all day.)

Any government that doesn’t work is a bad one. That should be the message for conservatives and liberals alike.

No one should be anti-government, just anti-big brother. Anti-waste. Anti-corruption.

Remember, government is people. Conservatives aren’t truly anti-government because truly, democracy is a government for and by the people.

Conservatives shouldn’t be shouting a message of anti-government. They should be anti-bureaucracy, anti-pork, anti-status quo.

We are government. Government isn’t doing its job because we aren’t doing ours.

If government doesn’t work, it’s because we didn’t demand that it work. This, again, is where OWS gets it right, where conservatives can take a cue.

They see a system that isn’t working and they’re demanding it be changed.

Do they want to change it in heinous and horrendously idiotic ways? Of course they do.

But make no mistake, it needs to change.

We need to change. It’s up to you and I to decide how that change will look, if we choose to make it happen at all.

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

3 thoughts on “Danger of Anti-government rhetoric from OWS, conservatives alike

  1. Doug says:

    I haven’t heard #ows call for Direct Democracy but I have heard a call for “one man one vote” that actually measures that sentiment. I think Citizens United steps all over that. I see a correlation between money and speech but also worry that big money can corner, if not monopolize, that marketplace of ideas: a general election. Tough call that.

    Now to your point about dissing and demonizing “Guv’ment” daily. I get it, but it’s lame. It reeks of the lazy reactionary looking for call and response instead of a way to fix and repair.

    Nice post says this left of center reader and good luck mixing it up with the hard harsh political right.

    Regards,

    • youngright says:

      I’m not sure if you’re calling my argument lazy and reactionary or if you’re talking about the way a lot of conservatives think. There certainly is a correlation between money and speech, but furthermore, money is speech. We vote with our wallets every day, no matter how big or small our pockets.

      Increasing transparency with campaign finances helps add credibility to our system. Again though, the problem is even amid some of the most incompetent government in American history, the average person doesn’t seem to really care. OWS is impressive because they’re showing strength and ferocity amid overwhelming power of opposition.

      Thanks for reading, look forward to more dialogue in the future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: