Effective Government

Survival depends on effective government

Less government is not always better

We often hear “big government” vs. “small government” comparisons between candidates for public office. Unfortunately, this has created a false dichotomy used to label and demonize “liberal,” “lefty,” “socialist,” “tax and spend” Democrats and curry support for “taxpayer friendly,” “we’ll all get rich” Republicans. It is a fool’s choice.

The issue is more properly framed by asking is the government “effectively” doing what government is supposed to do?

Ever since humans developed language and survival skills, they have banded together to provide for common defense, provision of food and supplies, nurturing the sick and infirm and raising their offspring. Clans and tribes gave way to feudal monarchies that, in turn, morphed into democratic governments. All of these forms of human governments have, to greater or lesser degrees, provided these basic necessities for survival.

With increased economic wealth and power and much larger populations, governments have grown into massive organizations, but they are still charged with carrying out these same basic functions.

In every era throughout human history, cabals of the rich and those who would be rich have stood up and proclaimed, “We need more wealth.” This is usually coupled with claims that the current organization that ensures the collective survival is “too big” and “too expensive.” If only government were smaller, everyone would get to keep more of the wealth they all coveted. Many get sucked in by the slick snake oil sales pitch, believing in trickle down economic myths and tax scams that benefit only the very few at the top of the food chain. Every era of excesses brought on by these headlong cash chasing folks has ended in flames of recession or depression.

It is time to break the cycle before it goes bust once more.

Governments that ensure survival and growth of their large populations will always be large. They will only be truly effective if they satisfy the basic needs of the clan. With the passage of time and increases in knowledge about the interconnectedness of the human endeavor with the natural world these basic needs have become much more complex to ensure. Now we add in concerns about the environment, patterns of disease and increased violence, income inequality and fairness, the need for wild spaces and wild animals, food security, universal healthcare, quality public education, religious freedom, racial and ethnic diversity and a whole host of other concerns.

Those that see these concerns as nothing more than a drain on their personal pocketbooks, fight back by adding claims that the new concerns are not the business of government at all because they impinge on personal liberty. “Why should we have to pay for what we don’t like and don’t use,” but others need and cannot afford, becomes justification for opposition until the flood or fire comes and help does not. They trot out claims that all these concerns will be addressed when we all have an additional $2,000 in tax savings and can contribute to a local charity.

In our world, populated in the billions with dwindling food and water supplies, an increasingly angry climate and nuclear warheads on missiles that can reach everywhere on the planet, we cannot ever go back to those simpler times when the sailboat and steam engine were the main drivers of economic growth and political power. Personal freedom and individual responsibility are not enough to carry us all through. “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable,” is no longer a workable strategy for resolving conflicts. Larger government only works if it effectively addresses these concerns.

It is time for a return to an approach to our collective problems based upon basic assumptions that everyone can contribute to the solutions and should have a voice in the decision-making. None of the concerns that we demand our government address are solely Democratic or Republican concerns. They are valid human concerns that will have an impact on the collective survival of the human tribe and need a collective response.

In our time of turmoil, we each have a voice in choosing how our collective government will ensure the survival of the clan. Will we contribute more and choose people who will manage those resources effectively for the common good? Or will we contribute less, keep more for ourselves and choose those who will lookout for the wealthy and themselves?

Your vote is your voice.

Waring Fincke is a retired attorney who serves as a court appointed guardian for the elderly and disabled with a Sheboygan county non-profit agency.