What is Government?

What is government? Frederic Bastiat defined government as “the great fiction, through which everbody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” While there is much in this definition to commend itself, the best definition is to say that government is force. To exercise government is to compel other people to engage in behavior, refrain from behavior, or to give of their resources under the threat of violence, either explicitly or implied.

All government activity is performed by the barrel of a gun. In some cases this gun is clearly seen. If someone commits a crime like robbery, then police officers, as agents of the government, will come with guns to arrest the perpetrator. In other cases, the gun is implied. To see the gun, just follow the chain of non-compliance. Harry Browne gives an excellent example in his book Why Government Doesn’t Work :

            Suppose, for example, that you’re a barber. One day the state Board of

Tonsorial Cutters of Hair (BOTCH) issues a regulation to stop “cut-throat

competition” — decreeing that no barber can charge less than $8 for a haircut.

(Many states do have laws prohibiting barbers from charging less than a stated

minimum price.)

                So long as you charge at least $8, you won’t even notice the regulation. But

suppose your price is only $6. Perhaps you’re in a low-income neighborhood

where people can’t afford $8 haircuts, or maybe your shop is new and you want

to attract customers, or perhaps business is slow and you need to stimulate sales.

For whatever reason, suppose you offer haircuts for $6.

                You may be able to get away with this for a month or two. But eventually

the folks at BOTCH will send you a letter, ordering you to desist.

If you comply by boosting your price to $8, you’ll hear nothing more. But if

you keep cutting hair for $6, eventually some men in suits will come to your

shop and warn you to stop undercharging.

                If you continue to ignore the law, you’ll receive a subpoena — telling you to

appear in court. If you don’t show up, or if you ignore the court’s order to raise

your price, your barber’s license will be revoked.

                If you defy the court by continuing to cut hair, another group of men will

come to your shop. These fellows may not be in suits, and they probably will

have guns. They will be there to close your business.

                If you resist, their job will be to “take you into custody” — which is  a

euphemism for seizing you, handcuffing you, and taking you to jail against your

will.

                At this point, it will be obvious that the regulation’s purpose is to force

barbers to charge at least $8 — not by persuasion, but with a gun.

EVERY government activity is an exercise in force. Every government activity is designed to compel its citizens to engage in behavior that they may or may not choose to do voluntarily under the threat of violence. There is nothing voluntary about it. While some may say that they have no problem with paying taxes and support the way that the government spends its money, the threat of force does not disappear, only the appearance of it.

Every time a citizen says “there ought to be a law…” or “government ought to provide…” what they are saying is that people should be forced under the threat of violence to behave in a certain way or fund a program, whether they are willing or not.

This is not to say that some programs are unworthy or have poor intentions. The National Endowment for the Arts is a good example. Art is a wonderful thing. Every civilized society has artists and patrons of the arts. I, myself, love art, theater, and music. Does the worthiness of art in society justify using the threat of violence against its citizenry in order to fund it? I think not. The vast majority of government activities, from patronage of the arts, to funding of scientific research, to aid to the unfortunate can be handled voluntarily, and done so more effectively than government. Just because the intention is good or the program is worthy does not justify the use of government to deliver it.

Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating anarchy. As a Christian, and even as a rational human being, I do see that there is a role for governments. The Apostle Paul speaks of submission to secular governments.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whosoever rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement upon themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also a matter of conscience.- Romans 13: 1-5

Do notice what Paul says government does! Government is the institution charged with maintaining civil order. There is a place for the sword of government in encouraging good behavior and punishing evil behavior. Laws prohibiting theft, rape, murder, fraud, and such are necessary for a civil society. Enforcement of these laws do require use of the sword. Paul did not charge government with the duty of providing alms, subsidizing art, or managing economic activity.

While there are certainly anarchistic arguments for private production of public goods (see The Market for Liberty) I would still argue that it is acceptable for the government to provide TRUE public goods. These are services that benefit ALL of society. These public goods would include roads and infrastructure, police and fire services, national defense, and a fair and impartial judicial system.

While these functions are exercises in force, they can be justified. Maintaining civil order is absolutely necessary. True public goods are absolutely necessary. While there may be the occasional dissenter, any rational person would have no problem contributing to the maintenance of these public goods nor would they dissent to allowing government to maintain reasonable civil order.

The question the citizenry must ask when asking government to do something is “would I personally put a gun to the head of someone to enforce compliance or fund it?” The politician should ask the same question when voting to create or fund a government program or pass a regulation. If you are not willing to get your own hands dirty to pull the trigger yourself, is it right to delegate that to an intermediary (i.e.; the government)?

Election Postmortem

For many of us, the 2012 elections were a great disappointment.  Economic growth is not keeping up with population growth. Unemployment has been over 8% for the entire length of President Obama’s term. No President has ever been re-elected with unemployment over 7.2%. We are indeed in the worst economy since the Great Depression, and that includes the Carter years! George HW Bush was tossed out of office on the basis of an economy that was in much better shape than the one we currently endure. When looking at the internal data of the polls and the state of the economy, it was not unreasonable to believe that the GOP would win this election in a wave.

Romney ran a campaign based upon a good economic plan and a good record in business. His success at turning around failing ventures was exemplary. President Obama had no record to run on. He could not point to any accomplishments during his first term that would merit re-election. His one signature accomplishment, Obamacare, still remains unpopular with the American people. It was forced down the throat of the American people on a partisan vote. His entire campaign was reduced to scathing negative attacks and distortions on his opponent. His entire rationale for his re-election during the campaign was to create an irrational fear of the other guy. He offered nothing to make us believe that the next four years would be any different than the last four years. How then could this incompetent amateur get re-elected? What mistakes did the Republican Party make that allowed this to happen and what changes should they make going forward?

First, the Republican Party needs to differentiate between partisanship and principle. The American people have said time and time again that they are tired of the partisan bickering. They want the two parties to work together to solve the problems facing the country. This is a pipe dream, but not for the reasons that you might think. The failure to work together on the big issues facing our nation has more to do with deeply held philosophical differences on how to achieve a goal than it does over a desire to “one up” the other guy.

Politics has been treated over the past 24 years as more of a competitive sport rather than service to country. There is a red team and a blue team. Each side is more concerned with “winning” the next election and thus increasing their share of power. Each side will peck away at the opposition in an attempt to bring down the other side rather than doing what is right for their constituents. Die hards on both sides love the “red meat” of demagoguery, ridicule, and destruction. When those engaged in political discourse focus on these things, while it may be food for the base, it turns off the independents and frustrates more and more Americans. There are so many Americans who are eligible to vote who choose not to out of frustration.  Many believe that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties because all they do is engage in partisan attack over small things.

The mistake Republicans made over the last four years was failing to articulate their principles and dived straight into the mud. Middle America was paying attention when Rush Limbaugh stated that he wanted Barack Obama to fail. Mitch McConnell’s statement that the goal of the GOP was to make Obama a one term President did not go unnoticed. This kind of rhetoric works well with the base, but makes the party seem petty and personal. It gave Obama the opening he needed to blame the GOP for his failures. Rather than positioning themselves as the loyal opposition standing on principle, it made them seem like their goal was to bring down the President, no matter the cost.  Now to be fair to Rush Limbaugh, he has explained the context of his statement. He wanted SOCIALISM to fail, not Obama per se. 

The Republican Party needs to articulate their principles in opposition. This means that they need to offer alternative legislation to accomplish the goals that are set before them. When they stand in opposition, they need to explain to the American people why. They need to avoid incendiary language and personal attacks. They should praise the intention of the legislation, but explain how the approach they oppose won’t work or has unintended consequences that are unacceptable. By differentiating themselves on principle rather than partisanship they can stay true to themselves yet not alienate a large section of the electorate that they need to attract.

Secondly, the Tea Party elements of the GOP need to rebrand themselves. The principles of the Tea Party are valid and mainstream. There is nothing extreme about balanced budgets, fiscal conservatism, low taxes, and opposition to socialism. They are right to oppose the moderate elements or RINOs in the GOP. Where they have made mistakes is in pushing the wrong candidates to carry their banner. Christine O’Donnell came across as a lightweight. Sharon Angle was also painted as a lightweight. Akin and Murdock’s comments about rape were not only insulting, but outright nutty.

The Tea Party just needs to absorb itself into the GOP and stop using that moniker. Fair or not, the brand is tainted.  While the values of the Tea Party are mainstream, the brand has been irreparably harmed and labeled as racist and hateful. This narrative is not fair, but the independents we are trying to attract have bought it. It is possible to drop the name without compromising the values.

Finally, the GOP needs to stop the romance with moderates and neo-cons. The future of the GOP is libertarianism. Freedom is an easy value to market. It comes across as hypocritical to say we want government to keep out of your economic life when you tell them that we want government to interfere in your personal choices. Freedom means that sometimes people will make choices we don’t like. Deal with it.  If the GOP wants to win elections, they need to offer a true small government candidate, not a Democrat lite.  This means we need to nominate either a true conservative or a libertarian. We need to offer the American people a clear alternative. We can still be pro-life, but we need to make sure that we allow for exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or the mother’s life. That is reasonable. Articulate the choice as freedom vs. big government and freedom will win.

I am sure that there are other things that can be said, but these are some initial thoughts.

Making Sense of the Debates

We have now sat through three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate. After each debate the news media, pundits and focus groups will haggle over who won. Facebook becomes swarmed with memes from partisans trying to tear down the opposition for some gaffe or quote some zinger from their own candidate. Again, they will trumpet how their candidate won the debate.

It seems to me that all of this back and forth on who won is using the wrong standard of measurement. We want to score it like we would score a high school debate competition or even a presentation of a case before a jury. When I hear all of this analysis I can’t help but think of the movie line where the hero says something along the lines of “he thinks we are playing chess, but I’m playing poker.” Elections are not decided by debate points, but by persuading voters to show up at the polls and cast their vote for your candidate.

There are three kinds of elections, the base election, the choice election, and the referendum election. If we are to correctly analyze a candidates’ debate performance and determine a “winner” then we must also correctly analyze the type of election that we are facing. The base election is when the country is closely divided. Generally things are going well, and the winner will be determined by which candidate gets their core constituencies out to the polls to vote. A choice election is where the country is at a crossroads and needs to determine which direction the nation will go over the next term. A referendum election is where an incumbent has not performed well or has performed well and needs to persuade the voters that he deserves another term in office.

I would categorize then 1994 midterms as a base election. Clinton had defeated George HW Bush in 1992, which had upset conservative voters. Clinton failed to reach 50% of the popular vote and had tried to govern from the left. This energized conservatives who managed to seize control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. The job of a candidate in a base election is to energize their base voters. Republicans want to energize conservatives and Democrats want to energize liberals. When analyzing a debate in a base election, we must look at the effect the candidates performance had on their core constituency. Did the candidate come out aggressive? Did he score some hits and zingers? Debate points are not as important as how energized the base is.

The 1996 Dole/Clinton election would be an example of a choice election. Clinton had been soundly defeated in the 1994 midterms and was facing a GOP that was chomping at the bit to regain the White House. Clinton was very astute and pivoted to the center following his defeat and was successfully able to frame the 1996 election as a choice between a forward looking Bill Clinton, building a bridge to the 21^st century, or a return to the policies of the past. The fact that Republicans nominated Bob Dole didn’t help much to dissuade the electorate of this narrative. In the debates, Clinton continued to provide a clear narrative of where he wanted to take the country in comparison to his opponent. In choice elections, the traditional debate scoring model is more important. The candidates must be able to clearly articulate a vision and direction for the nation as well as persuade voters that his is the correct course.

The 1980 Reagan/Carter election is an example of a referendum election. In these election years, the incumbent is challenged by either a domestic crisis (such as a bad economy), a foreign policy crisis (such as the Iranian Hostage Crisis), or both. Carter was presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression (and yes, though politicians love to use that phrase, the late 70’s and first couple years of the 80’s have that honor) while American citizens were held hostage in Iran for over a year. The nation did not want another 4 years of Jimmy Carter, but they were uncertain about Reagan. Carter spent much of his campaign maligning Reagan as a cowboy and reckless, both economically and in foreign affairs. In a referendum election, the debate serves as means for the challenger to show himself to the electorate as an acceptable alternative. Winning on points is irrelevant. The question voters are asking is “Do I feel comfortable with the challenger as President of the United States.” Reagan showed himself to be intelligent, reasonable, and Presidential. He was not the warmonger that Carter tried to make the electorate believe. Reagan won in a landslide.

In looking at the debate performances over the past month, I have heard partisans on both sides try to analyze who won on points. What we need to do is analyze it based upon the kind of election we are facing. This is base election to a point. Obama realizes that his only hope is to energize his own base and depress Republican turnout. This is NOT a choice election. Obama has failed to lay out an agenda for a second term. He has not provided a reason to believe that the next four years will be any different than the last four years. He has spent hundreds of millions of dollars attempting to define his opponent as a greedy, heartless, corporate executive who cares only about the rich. He has attached Romney on Bain Capital, his taxes, and he has tried to link Romney to George W Bush.

This is not a choice election. It is partially a base election, but it is mostly a referendum election. 56% of Americans believe that we are on the wrong track. The U-6 unemployment figures have been in double digits since he took office. He has increased the debt to $16 Trillion. We have suffered a downgrade in our nation’s credit rating for the first time in history. The fiscal cliff is looming with no credible plan from the President. The recent attack on our embassy in Libya, leaving 4 Americans dead, including our ambassador, has left many of us scratching our heads, wondering if our President is up to the job. By and large, the American electorate has decided that the want a change in the White House.

In the debate, Mitt Romney had to answer the question, “Is Romney and acceptable alternative.” In the first debate, Romney established himself as credible on the economy. He appeared Presidential, showed himself to be a caring and compassionate person, and dispelled months of negative attacks by the Obama campaign. In the second and third debates, Obama performed better, but did nothing to change the new narrative that Romney is a credible potential President. While Obama may have won that third debate on points, it doesn’t matter when analyzed from this perspective. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. He showed himself to be intelligent and capable. He has a plan to revive the economy. While not as experienced as Obama on foreign policy, he showed himself capable of handling the job. Romney accomplished what he needed to do. Obama’s job in these debates was to disqualify Romney from office. He failed to do that. By this measure Romney won all the debates. It is about votes, not points. Of course we will see come November 6 who is right.