Senator
Robert Taft was a unique politician. Although a Republican—and a formidable
political opponent of President Harry S. Truman—he wasn’t a cookie-cutter party
clone; indeed, he had some serious disagreements with some of his own party
members. If his principles were at stake, he chose principle over party.
In Profiles
of Courage, John F. Kennedy said of Taft,
“Those who were shocked at
these apparent departures from his traditional position did not comprehend that
Taft’s conservatism contained a strong strain of pragmatism, which caused him
to support intensive Federal activity in those areas
that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system.
Taft did not believe that this was inconsistent with the conservative doctrine;
conservatism in his opinion was not irresponsibility. Thus he gave new
dimensions to the conservative philosophy: he stuck to that faith when it
reached its lowest depth of prestige and power and led it back to the level of
responsibility and respectability.”[1]
What a concept! A politician whose principles embraced
human need. I suspect he believed the oft-quoted axiom, “That government is
best that governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”[2]
In the simple eloquence of the sentence, I agree; however, I suspect few people
recall, if they ever acknowledged, that last part: “because its people
discipline themselves.”
Henry David Thoreau took the phrase further in “Civil Disobedience:”
“Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, – ‘That
government is best which governs not at all.’” However, Thoreau didn’t advocate
his dictum as a rigid “law of Medes and Persians.” He qualified it thus: “…and
when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which
they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments
are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.”[3]
(Italics mine)
In my lifetime the Medes and Persians have infiltrated
America’s political right and are gaining increasing influence, plowing ahead
without any semblance of Senator Robert Taft’s pragmatism. Today’s right would
jerk the rug out from all who are dependent upon government relief, without
regard to circumstance or to the validity of need. Indeed, the hell-bent drive
to remove government pays scarce attention to any human vulnerability—or even
worse, dismisses it carte blanche as the result of laziness and poor decisions,
and thus unworthy of assistance. (“Let ‘em eat cake.”) To say the political
right has prioritized principle over human need would be a gross understatement.
It seems obvious to me that the primary focus of the
current Republican party is to remove all boundaries and limitations from the
corporate world and to allow American economy to free-fall into abject oligarchy.
In doing so, they totally disregard the second part of their beloved maxim, namely,
“…because its people discipline themselves.” There is no indication that
corporate American has any interest, intention, or ability to discipline
itself. But, the political right expects the poor to discipline themselves.
I appreciate the few Republican Senators and Representatives
who have refused to accept the ring through their nose, and who demonstrate
some degree of free-thinking ability; but, alas, they are a shrinking breed.
What bothers me most about the sell-out to oligarchy is
that some of its most visible and verbal spokespersons are Bible-thumping self-proclaimed
evangelicals. I emphasize the term, “self-proclaimed,” because their behavior
doesn’t align with the “evangel” (good news) from which the term originates.
Where does their evangelical oligarchy reflect, “I
was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me
clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited
me”? (Matthew 25:35-36 NRSV)
Where does it reflect, “If you wish to be perfect, go,
sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Matthew
19:21 NRSV)
Where does it reflect,
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
The cliché cop-out is “But Jesus was addressing
individuals, not the government. Let the individual philanthropists and the
churches and the non-profits take care of that. Leave the government out of it.”
(Meanwhile, let the government bail out the largest and wealthiest corporations
in the world. You see, they want to be very selective about what areas the government
should “govern least.”)
The cop-out misses a very important reality: philanthropists,
churches and non-profits already are operating pretty much at full capacity,
and their efforts and resources don’t begin to touch the enormity of need. Indeed,
churches are in serious decline.
Which brings me back to John F. Kennedy’s comment about
Senator Robert Taft, namely, that he believed in “intensive Federal activity in
those areas that he believed not adequately served by the private enterprise system.”
I agree: “That government is best which governs least,
because its people discipline themselves.” I agree: the current system of government
assistance tends to foster dependence and parasitic abuse (although such examples
are relatively rare). So, change the system to foster growth
toward independence! It’s been done before—briefly! THEN let the government “govern
least.” Such a radical suggestion is beyond the
capacity of today’s blog. But stay tuned. There’ll be more.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my
world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
[1] John F. Kennedy,
Profiles in Courage (New York: HARPERPERENNIAL MODERNCLASSICS,1956) p. 195.
[2] The quote is
most frequently credited to Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience; however,
it appears earlier in “United States Magazine and Democratic Review,” founded
in 1837 by John O’Sullivan.
Americans heard the pleas to stay
home. They were told what would happen if they didn’t. Still, millions traveled
and gathered during the Thanksgiving holiday, either doubting the warnings or
deciding they would take their chances.