Government of the People, For the People, By the People

By John Heptig

Ever since Reagan began his campaign against government, those two quotes have become the mantra for those on the political right. Unfortunately, they also have become household expressions, especially with Republicans and libertarians.

This disdain for government is a logical one since historically it has been governments that have committed some of the largest atrocities in human history. After all, it was the dictatorship of Nazi Germany that committed genocide on a massive scale. It was the theocracy of the Catholic Church that was responsible for the Crusades. It was the monarchies of feudal Europe that oppressed millions of people. It was countless other governments throughout human history that committed acts of war, torture, imprisonment, and slavery of anyone who opposed them.

Blaming government, or rather the idea of government, for these tragedies is an oversimplification, however. Tragedies of these sorts are simply the result of human nature. I'm not a psychologist by any means but it is safe to say that there are all kinds of people in the world. There are people who are ruthless, violent, and will do whatever it takes to get what they want. Then there are people who are selfless, compassionate, and do not have an inherent desire to succeed at the expense of others. So if the old adage that "nice guys finish last" is true, then it's the ruthless and aggressive that succeed. I believe this is a core principle in the evolution of human civilization. Those who are willing to harm others to get what they want inevitably move up the social ladder and that is why I believe that historically dictators are some of the most infamous people you'll find in the history books.

Since it is the evolution of government, and not the concept of government itself, that leads to the oppression and violence against the people of lower social rank, omnipotent people or groups of people can exist with or without belonging to government or at least what is considered the classic depiction of government. Yielding great powers can often be a simple matter of working one's way up the social economic ladder. For example, take the East India Company which was a British corporation founded in 1600 and existed until 1874. With the shares of this company being owned by wealthy merchants and aristocrats, this powerful corporation had its own private army that was used to control large sections of India. Through its powerful lobbying of the British Parliament, the company eventually became a monopoly thanks to deregulation and favorable trade laws. It was through these lobbying efforts that led to the Tea Act of 1773 which gave the company an exemption from paying taxes that other merchants were required to pay. When the American colonist in Boston heard of this unfair advantage given to the company over local merchants, they responded in protest by climbing aboard an East India Company ship loaded with tea and dumping the tea in the harbor. Of course we now know this as the Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party of course played its role in the start of the American Revolution. Thus, the founding fathers were all too familiar with the dangers of unrestrained wealth and power. It is for this reason the Framers of the Constitution debated the ideas of civil liberties, checks and balances, and what would later be known as 'Democracy in America'. This "American Experiment" truly was an experiment since few societies in human history had dabbled with the concept of democracy. Throughout most of history, it was always the wealthy elite who had the power, but now that had changed + it was the people who had the power. It was a "government of the people, for the people, by the people".

Despite our democratic process, however, democracy in America is not guaranteed. In fact, democracy in and of itself is never guaranteed. It is only as effective as a society wants it to be. As the well-known political and social activist Abbie Hoffman once said, "Democracy is not something that you believe in, or something that you hang your hat on. It's something that you do, you participate. Without participation, democracy crumbles and fails. If you participate, you win, and the future is yours." This is because there will always be those who will try to manipulate and change the system to benefit themselves at the expense of others. It is necessary that the American people understand the power they have and always ensure that it's not compromised.

Although democracy is usually defined by a country's voting rights, democracy can be manipulated and controlled even though it may not always be apparent. This is usually achieved with money, not just in campaign finances or lobbying, but also in the news media and corporate public relation campaigns. When the wealthy elite are able to buy up the vast majority of news outlets, it gives them great power for their propaganda efforts. Today, only five companies own the majority of news outlets that Americans watch, read, and listen to. It is for this reason that the news media is the "agenda-setter" for national priorities. They have the ability, for the most part, to determine what Americans are talking about and what they aren't. To make matters worse, these media conglomerates have interlocking board of directors with many other large businesses including health insurance companies. Therefore, when it comes to healthcare for example, it is often in the financial interest of those who run the media to portray the government as inept and to give a favorable opinion to the private insurance industry.

This kind of wielding influence and power by the news media and Corporate American makes the United States look as though it resembles a plutocracy or an oligarchy rather than the democratic republic it has long been known to be (or even a constitutional republic as today's Republicans like to call it).

Because of this seemingly unlimited power held by Corporate America, they have been very successful at convincing the American people that our government (a.k.a 'We The People') "can't do anything right" as some people like to say. Of course this generalization is absurd considering the United States government is responsible for the single greatest achievement by any species that has ever walked this earth; they put a man on the moon.

One way that the Republican Party and the corporate media has been so successful at ridiculing the government, is that they often use catchy talking points such as the term "big government". As I mentioned above, big powerful governments throughout history have committed some of the most heinous acts. So when a politician or pundit broaches the idea of nationalizing an industry such as health care, the news media can simply invoke the term big government and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. The problem with this characterization, however, is that the term can have two meanings. It can be used to describe a government with authoritarian powers, or it can simply be used to describe a government that provides a lot of services and hires a large number of federal workers.

The ironic thing about the term big government is that its two definitions are, in some regards, the opposite. Some of the most authoritarian governments in history were dictatorships and monarchs which were run by a single person. The Framers of the Constitution essentially created a "big government" by building in a system of checks and balances which was achieved in large part due to the many people required to run our government including those at the federal, state, or local level. Therefore, the United States government has ample amounts of "red tape" built in to mitigate any possibilities of corruption.

Because our official form of government is a representative democracy that is "of the people, for the people, by the people", the biggest threat to its purity is from outside influences, mainly the wealthy elite. When people criticize their government officials for being corrupt or incompetent, the most often reason is because that official was not making clear decisions based on personal opinion or the opinion of their constituents; instead decisions were being made based on who was providing the biggest campaign contributions. Ironically, many of these same people who criticize the government for doing the bidding for corporate lobbyists want to solve the problem by transferring the power directly to these corporations.

If people want their representative to represent them instead of the wealthy elite, the easiest solution is to take the wealthy elite out of the equation. For example, if the health insurance industry is lobbying Congress to pass laws that benefit them by allowing them to gouge the consumer, then abolishing the private health insurance industry and replacing it with a public system, which will not have any outside influences, is the simplest solution. Supporters of the private insurance companies will often defend them by saying all you need is a few regulations + ironically many of these same people abhor regulations + to prevent them from, lets say, not covering people with preexisting conditions.

The problem with this theory is that as long as rich and powerful insurance companies exist, it will always be a back and forth struggle between the wealthy elite and 'We The People'. It is for this reason that I believe when there is a need for goods or services that the market will not produce or is not willing to produce at a reasonable rate, 'We The People' should step in. We cannot let fear tactics deter us from progress.

As Howard Zinn once said, "The challenge remains. On the other side are formidable forces: money, political power, the major media. On our side are the people of the world and a power greater than money or weapons: the truth."