guest post: on limited government
(i’ve been thinking a lot about what limited government means to me, and i thought it would be interesting to get a bit of a different perspective, so i asked one of my favorite conservative friends/bloggers, curtis schweitzer, to contribute his thoughts on the subject. i think from his post you’ll find it easy to see why he’s one of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned republicans i know :-).
The concept of limited or government is a popular one these days, which is something that might seem odd considering the balance of power in Washington. And yet, when we look at the over-arching viewpoints of the two major U.S. political parties, it starts to make more sense. After all, the traditionally more populist Democratic Party has recently made the influence of wealthy lobbyists one of the keystones of their campaigns, and while the expansion of the government in certain arenas might be a necessary byproduct of their political and philosophical outlook, the politicians in the Democratic Party– in particular Barack Obama– realize that “small government” is very complimentary to their agenda, and thus have (rather brilliantly) embraced those aspects of it which allow them to champion it without seeming self-contradictory.
I am not a Democrat, and as such, “limited government” means something different to me. This isn’t to suggest that I think those who disagree with my opinion on the matter are anything but intelligent, well-reasoned people the have the best interests of the country at heart, merely that I disagree with their outlook. This, I think is a good thing– after all, a diversity of opinions is at the heart of why Democracy is as powerful, flexible, and triumphant as it is today.
Nonetheless, my views on limited government stem from philosophical foundations. I believe that the personal responsibility of individual citizens is at the heart of what makes the United States great. I believe that government is a necessary evil, a byproduct of humanity’s faults, not its successes. I believe that self-interest is the best motivator for human beings, but that it must be checked by the institution of rational laws that are as minimal as possible to encourage a law-abiding, civilized, and moral society. I believe it is the government’s responsibility to legislate and incentivize only that which is necessary for the proper functioning of society and no more. I believe that capitalism works precisely because it limits the intervention of government in the marketplace. And I believe that ultimately, this philosophy places the burden on me to deal with and respond to society’s ills.
Oppression and marginalization are things that happen in every society, and in every society the dominant forms of political expression and the wide diversity of opinions are interested in dealing with mitigating it. America is no different. The false dilemma that is often presented– that leftists and Democrats care about the poor and conservatives/Republicans don’t– is not only untrue, it is dishonest, and often use as a political cudgel, a weapon that keeps one’s opponents in check.
Conservatives do care about the poor and marginalized– where they differ is who’s responsibility it is to care for them and how that care is carried out. A true conservative believes that the government isn’t good at addressing society’s ills, and that, as such, it is private individuals and groups are responsible for addressing them. In that sense, modern conservatism has failed to adequately address many of today’s issues– in particular, religious groups have focused far too much on the politicization of faith instead of what role that faith plays in society– whatever society that might be.
Nonetheless, limited government has greater implications than just the problems of the poor and marginalized. Questions of economy, law, and ethics are also very pertinent. What is the role, for example, of rational self-interest in the regulation (or lack thereof) of the economy? How should the law deal with homosexual marriage? These are not easy questions for any political philosophy, and as a general rule, it is clear to me that the conservative, small-government movement has not dealt with them perfectly. Nonetheless, their answers to these questions are in my opinion much better than the alternative.
The tension between “compassion” and “pragmatism” is, for example, a difficult thing to balance in any economic system. But the small-government approach tries to balance it in a rational way– tries to look at the problem and make its negative impacts as small as possible (rather than engineering those problems away, as many other philosophies do). By limiting the size (and most importantly, power) of the government, conservatism attempts to pit self-interest against self-interest. After all, the chief problem with government is that they are, by definition, only as accountable as the people are willing to allow– throughout our history, we’ve seen that this system, which in comparison to many others is far, far better, still isn’t perfect, and the abuse of power remains something all Americans should be watchful against. By starting with a philosophy that the government plays a small, rather than large, role in society, the damage that it can potentially do to society is severely reduced.
This is obviously not a comprehensive list about what “limited government” means to me, or why I believe in it. But it does, I think, outline some key points in what small government means and why I believe in it. Ultimately, it is a question of roles– is the role of the government to eliminate poverty or to encourage citizens to address it? Is it the government’s responsibility to control the financial system through entities like the Federal Reserve? Is it the government’s responsibility to provide universal healthcare? My answer is, no– what’s more, its a special kind of “no”, as IÂ think these are still important issues, they merely aren’t issues that the government is Constitutionally responsible for addressing. Limited government to me means that government is kept from growing out of control (as it did under President George W. Bush), it is kept in the black (as it was under President Clinton), and that future generations aren’t saddled with a government larger than the one I found when I got here, and certainly that they aren’t asked to pay for the financially excesses that my generation left them with (as they are most likely going to be).
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like I will be able to achieve any of those goals– or that any politician is interested in them either.
Curtis Schweitzer is a freelance composer and writer from Colorado Springs, Colorado. His music can be found at Sibelius Music, as well as featured in the popular webserial “Project Xâ€, which has accrued more than 1.3 million views, and is currently available on DVD. He has won numerous awards, including a first place finish in the 2007 Biola University Annual Composition Contest, and Second Place in the Colorado Springs Pike’s Peak Young Composers Competition. His music has been played by both the Colorado Springs Symphony and the Biola Symphony Orchestra, as well as by many independent musicians.
April 17 2009 11:00 am | guest post and politics
April 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Thank you
May 1st, 2009 at 7:06 am
[...] of my favorite people to debate hot-button topics with is my friend curtis, who recently wrote a guest post for me on limited government from a more conservative perspective. curtis and i went to high school [...]
May 26th, 2009 at 7:47 am
[...] recently asked a friend to write about his view points on limited government, as it’s a topic that’s been on my mind lately. i recognize that limited government and [...]