What is the legitimate role of government?

Election 2012

MOST PEOPLE SEEM to think that the election on November 6th is a contest between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. It isn't, not really. Some think that it's Democrat vs. Republican or Conservative vs. Liberal. A good argument could be made that we're supposed to vote either for or against Obama. A few idiots even go so far as to suggest that it's the racists vs the blacks. Pundits can be found debating the election from all of these points of view. I'm not buying any of them.

Click to enlarge

What I wish we were all talking about is simply this: What is the legitimate role of government? If we could agree on that, making compromises here and there as needed, it would be easy to select our law makers and our Chief Executive. We would simply vote for those who are best equipped to perform that role and commit to it. The problem is that we the people are not in agreement on this most fundamental issue.

Let's be honest. If we're going to expand the size and scope of government any further, we must trash the Constitution. We've already violated it many times. Ever since the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act at the end of the 19th century, we have gone well beyond the limited role of government as envisioned by the Founders. We've quibbled with the terms of the document to excuse every excess since then. Again, let's be honest. If you want this government or you want to expand it even further, you need a new constitution. You need to redefine America.

It's clear that those who wish to preserve the Constitution are in the minority. It's likely that those in favor of rewriting it are also a minority. A third minority most likely doesn't care one way or the other. If there is a majority, it is composed of people who haven't given it any thought and couldn't be motivated to take an interest. However, the dissonance between our core principles and the practical application of them is creating a problem. We need to start the discussion and resolve it.

President Obama is an excellent choice for those who want to rewrite the Constitution and expand the role of government. In word and action, he has chaffed under its restrictions and, on occasion, violated them. In addition to Constitutional constraints, his Administration has selectively chosen to enforce or not enforce legislative mandates.

I'm not certain that Mitt Romney would fare better even if he's elected. He has spoken of the need to reduce spending, but has avoided addressing the subject of the role of government. If he were elected and wanted to eliminate programs as a method of reducing spending, he would be at odds with the convoluted legal precedents that we have contrived to justify those that are extra-Constitutional. 

Without eliminating programs that are beyond the scope of government envisioned in the Constitution, Romney could never reduce government spending enough to avoid the fiscal disaster that is looming in our future. Regardless of the promises that we've heard from politicians during these past one hundred years, government spending is unsustainable at its current rates.

Thus, as we enter the debate season in these coming weeks, I'm going to be listening for this discussion: What is the legitimate role of government? If no one addresses it, I believe that we are going to descend into an abyss regardless of who is elected.