Choice

30 March, 2007

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson


It seems I like to pick on the President a lot, so in the interest of fairness I’ll give George W. a break for today, and pick on FDR for a change. For starters, keep in mind that I was raised as an Irish “New Deal” Democrat, and was taught at my grandfathers knee that FDR could do almost anything except walk on water. However, in the decades since I’ve come to form a somewhat different view.

Undoubtedly Franklin D. Roosevelt was a great man, and he probably was the best available to hold office during the great depression. He did, I think, greatly aid in keeping the nation from imploding in the mid 1930’s, and he did lead the country to victory during WW II. However, FDR also had a few rather strange and somewhat unpopular political ideals for his time, ideals that started the United States down the garden path that leads to rampant socialism, and to our present era of government by decree. In the first hundred days of his presidency, Roosevelt signed 15 major pieces of legislation designed to relieve the suffering of millions, and extricate America from the Great Depression. Several of which were later refuted by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

In a national address he stated that in addition to the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, Americans had a right to “a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad. The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; The right to a good education.”

Fine words and fine ideals certainly, words designed to strike a chord in the minds of Americans struggling through the trials and tribulations of the depression era. But in his speech, FDR didn’t say it all. Rejecting our Constitutionally established limited government, autonomous society, and free economy, he assumed that a society of “equality” can only be brought about by the powerful, even unlimited regulation of a welfare state. What he envisioned was essentially a Marxist state, brought about without the “armed revolution of the proletariat” required by Lenin.

In contrast, the founding fathers of the United States felt that “liberty” and “equality” were compatible, and that one brought about the other. They believed that all people were equally endowed with certain natural rights, and certain inalienable political rights. Less idealistic than FDR, they also recognized that differences are an integral part of human nature. Regardless of our ideals, we all know that some people are better at this job than at that one, some are more handsome or beautiful than others, some people make good scientists, engineers, or businessmen, while others do not. Some people are just plain smarter or more industrious than their neighbors. All in all, some people are more equal than others, a fact that all the best intended laws, rules, and regulations ever devised by man cannot change.

Forcibly separating the various mechanisms of political inequality, the Constitution limits the powers of government to protecting our political rights. FDR’s “New Deal” socialism on the other hand, denies the existence of political rights, and instead requires government to guarantee the equality of our social and economic status. It ignores the historically proven fact that while any individual may rise to whatever social or economic level his persona allows him in a free society, attempting to force absolute economic equality on a society only drags everyone down to the level of the lowliest member of that society. Such forced equality stifles individual genius and initiative, denying all and sundry the right to excel. Instead it forces everyone into a common, and equally mediocre, mold. We have only to look at the former Soviet Union to see the long term results of a state directed economy and forced “equality”.

Ronald Reagan obviously did not believe in FDR’s New Deal socialism. In his first inaugural address he quickly pointed out that “Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem”, a warning this nation has yet to heed. He was speaking of the economic troubles facing the nation at that time, and the inherent inability of government to effectively control the economy of a society that is not itself strictly controlled. He was also speaking of the rapidly growing power of a bureaucratic and intellectual elite in our nations capitol that was undermining, in his view, the ability of the people to control what has become an unelected government. Where Roosevelt thought that the American people consented to be ruled by government in return for government guaranteed security, Reagan felt that the Constitution guaranteed individual freedom, dignity, and choice, rather than a monthly government check from the welfare department. If we intend to remain a free people, then we must reestablish the rule of law under the Constitution, rejecting the idea that a handful of select elites should have the power to make our decisions for us. The two concepts are not compatible, nor is there a safe and comfortable middle ground.. We can be a free people who happen to have a government, or we can have a government ruling a subject people.

Certainly some aspects of Roosevelt’s socialized society such as our existing Social Security program can, and probably should, be adapted to our free society, but any such adaptation must be done with extreme care lest it once again become the proverbial tail that wags the dog.

We are rapidly nearing the point where American citizens will no longer have a choice in the direction our country takes. Those who prefer Roosevelt’s version of America need only wait for public apathy and the steady increase of bureaucratic power over our lives to bring about a completely socialized nation. Those of us who prefer Reagan’s vision of America had better get off the sofa and start working long and hard for a return to the constitutional limitations on government that once made us the greatest free nation in mankind’s history.