Who Needs the Federal Government?

I've been ruminating lately over the seemingly increasing traction being gained by various conservative political ideas and organizations. A few nights ago I was listening to a radio newscast at the top of the hour on a conservative station. The story was about how millions of dollars had been squandered by the Federal Census Bureau, and the reporter introduced the topic by stating that the cited report was further proof "that the federal government isn't capable of running anything." This is just one example (and a rather mild one, at that) of the anti-Washington feelings that, to me, are just a bit over the top. Such sentiments are, of course, nothing new in this, our land of perpetual rebellious individualism. But the volume and rhetoric of the conversation over this past year has grown to a fever pitch that I find perhaps just obnoxious, but maybe even dangerous. I mean, honestly, why do we even need a national government?

Now let me clarify by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. But the vehemence and recklessness of those who are currently standing in as the most influential voices of conservative political thought in America has left me disappointed, to say the least. That these educated people truly believe that our nation is on the verge of Soviet-style oligarchy, that America could find itself under the heel of despotism any day now, is a notion I find hard to swallow. For those who place such a premium upon the founding documents and personalities of our American nation (which is, I believe, as it should be), I offer this bit of frustration from the pen of Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist no. 29: "Where, in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen, and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits, and interests?" Hamilton was writing with regards to the states' power of appointing officers to serve in the militia, which, of course, may be called into national service, but I think the sentiment may illustrate a broader issue. If we realistically expect to exist under the authority of a government with power sufficient to accomplish its purpose, we must of necessity grant that government a degree of trust. Indeed, the whole of The Federalist papers may be summed up as an argument in favor of granting the public trust to a democratic government, painstakingly created so as to protect the rights of the people.

No doubt some reader may think me naive or stupidly idealistic for seeming to pledge blind loyalty to our federal government. I propose nothing of the sort. As citizens of a republic made up of fallible and all too often self-seeking individuals, it is our duty to remain informed of the proposed solutions to our nation's challenges, to weigh the same according to their merit, and to ensure that the government which we have elected to represent us is acting within the constitutional sphere by which it is legally bound. But it seems to me that there comes a point at which the citizen must ask himself whether he is favorable to allowing the government to do those things for which it has been established; namely, things which individuals or profit-driven entities either cannot or should not hope to accomplish, but which are necessary to the general welfare. At such a point, I believe there can be found no better alternative than entrusting such work to a constitutionally-limited government popularly elected by a democratic society. But such a decision does certainly involve a degree of trust. And while I don't, strictly-speaking, have any sons or brothers in the federal government, I certainly have many fellow-citizens.

As a final reflection on the bent of our current political rhetoric, I again turn to Hamilton. In closing no. 29, he asks, "Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts?" Might I tag "parties out of power" to the end of that statement?

Happy Birthday, To His Excellency

Today marks the anniversary of the birthday of George Washington, a man to whom I feel perhaps no accolades can be exaggerated.  I believe no single individual approaches Washington's influence in the founding of our republic; quite simply, without him the United States of America would have been strangled in infancy, if not by the British during the War for Independence, then by our own domestic squabbles following our establishment as an independent nation.  

I join today with Henry Lee in affirming that George Washington, the General, the President, the American, was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countryman."