american government 101

**LONGEST POST SO FAR INCOMING**

So I'm taking a government class this semester, the first government class I've ever taken, and I gotta say I'm learning a lot. Probably the most important thing I'm learning is how our government is slowly shifting away from what our founding fathers had intended for our Federal government to be. I'm quickly learning that far too many Americans don't know anything about government or politics, I know, I used to be one of them. I didn't know anything about politics and was consequently apathetic towards it, but in my learnings I've realized it's exactly this state of mind among American citizens that is allowing the government to move away from what it used to be, and towards an uncertain goal.

The founding fathers of this country valued liberty above all else. Liberty, as I've been learning in class, had many different meanings to the founding fathers...7 that I've studied so far. First and most important, 1) Self-government, or living under laws created by representatives of the people. Having this makes it a lot easier for citizens to enjoy the other meanings of liberty, as they have a say into what becomes law. 2) Personal liberties or having a large area of personal choice without interference from government, such as religion, what color shirt you want to wear, what school you go to, who you can marry, etc. 3) Living under a government that protects person and property, or a government that protects citizens from each other. 4) Living under a government that does not harm innocent people in life, liberty, or property, or a government that protects citizens from itself. 5) Freedom from unlawful physical restraint. 6) Living under a government with limits, through means of a constitution. 7) Living under a local government, or not being ruled by foreigners.
This highly esteemed value of liberty that the founding fathers shared is what I'll refer to as traditional liberalism. Liberty valued above all else, "Give me liberty or give me death."

Prior to 1788, when the Constitution was ratified, our country operated under individual state governments. This gave the citizens of each state great power to create and live under laws of their choosing, Virginians living under laws that Virginians wanted, not Virginians living under laws that New Yorkers wanted. The founding fathers believed in a small federal government, considerably limited in it's powers; they wanted to leave a majority of the powers of government to the already established state governments. Article 1, section 8 of the constitution lists very specifically the powers of the federal government. It is from this you get one of the most fundamental contrasts between democrats and republicans. Since the creation of the constitution, there have been people in power who claim "if the constitution doesn't say I can't do it, then I can." and there have been others who hold to the beliefs that "if the constitution doesn't specifically say I can do it, then I can't." Democrats and Republicans. In general, Democrats are trying to expand the powers of the federal government beyond what is listed in Article 1.8 while republicans are trying to limit the powers of the federal government to what is listed in Article 1.8.

In the 1900's, or specifically the early 1900's, American government has experienced a dramatic shift, arguably for the worse. During the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, the federal government begun to expand its powers beyond what is listed in 1.8 to give itself powers ranging from regulating aspects of the economy, to providing social security and medical care, to playing an important role in housing grants and education. While these may sound like beneficial parts of our nation, it is important to consider that as the powers of the federal government expand, we, as citizens, begin to become less free. As the powers of government are shifted from the state governments (where our voice has a greater impact in the legislature) towards the federal government (where our voice has a lesser impact in congress), we are beginning to lose liberty in the sense of self government. My professor uses this diagram a lot in class to portray the change in government we've been experiencing in the twentieth century:


1931 or there about is when the shift of the powers of federal government really began, during the Roosevelt administration. We began to shift away from a constitutionally limited federal government (one of the meanings of liberty) to a federal government that has more and more control over us. The American people back then were more or less knowingly giving their freedoms to the federal government in exchange for the government 'solving all their problems'. This creates another problem, as the American people have less and less say in government, the more ignorance towards politics there will be. Fact is, we as an American people are the ones who control the government, not the other way around. Corruption aside, the government isn't ruling over us and making laws we as a people don't want, these are legislations approved by our elected representatives in Congress, yet the less knowledge we have of politics, the less useful we are as a people in the legislative process to make meaning contributions to democracy.

So government has become something that barely resembles our original federal government that was founded on traditional liberalism, that's just the cold hard truth. Is it bad? I don't know. The goal of pre-1931 government was to preserve the liberty of the American people, liberty to not have 1/3rd of our income taxed to support government policies that go outside of the constitutionally framed powers of the federal government as listed in Article 1.8, but the fact is that President Roosevelt didn't force this shift in government, though he definitely pushed the American people strongly towards it, it was the interest of the American people in a time of national desperation, war and depression. Citizens thought that if they gave the federal government more power, it could solve the economic crisis the country was experiencing, and it well might have, it's a government class not a history class so I don't know how well it actually worked. The idea was to give these powers to the federal government to create a solution to the problem, and then once the problem was solved, the powers never really shifted back to state governments.


So if the federal government's goal prior to 1931 was protecting liberty, what is the goal of post-1931 federal government? I'm not sure, but consider the policies implemented since then (largely by the democratic party), welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, government funding of the arts or scientific research, and a more recent example, Democratic party member Senator Clinton's proposal to create a federal 401k plan allowing the government to establish 401k plans for every American, matching up to $1,000 of each citizen's deposits each year. If you look at all these policies and many many more established post-1931, it would seem the goal of the federal government (and even the American people since they are the ones voting these presidents into office and voting these legislative representatives into Congress) is societal welfare. Sounds like a noble enough cause right? Let me give a little example to illustrate societal welfare entails...

According to "The History of Plymouth Plantation", the pilgrims at this time were experiencing an economic drought, if you will. They were practicing a society under which everyone was expected to work to the extent of their ability and the fruit of their labor was shared as communal property for the betterment of every member of the society (societal welfare), yet they "languished in misery" because of the shortage of food being grown. "This sharing of property in common (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men who were most able and fit for labor and service were annoyed at spending their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong or resourceful man had no more in the division of food and clothing than the man who was weak and not able to do a quarter of what the other one could; this was thought injustice" Simply put, the pilgrims were staving because the members of the society were unmotivated to work. In a society in which everything is given you by means of the mutual labor of the society, to what extent can a man be motivated? The taking of property from the few and giving it to the many breeds laziness, slothfulness, lack of motivation, and indeed economic poverty.

The pilgrims eventually divided the crop land among each individual family, based on their size, and stated that they were in charge of providing for their own family with this section of land. No more was food and/or clothing going to be given to them, if they didn't work their section of the field, that family would starve. If they worked hard, they could eat exceptionally well. This created a huge motivation among the pilgrims, "the women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to plant corn, whereas before they would allege weakness and inability; and it would have been thought great tyranny and oppression to compel them."

Why is America arguably the most prosperous nation in the world? Undoubtedly this can be attributed to the founding fathers' views that "what a man earns belongs to him", this being in contrast to a communistic nation, or a 'societal welfare' where "what a man earns belongs to society as a whole". However since 1931, with the expansion of the powers of federal government, we currently sit somewhere between those two extremes, thusly: "what a man earns belongs partly to him and partly to society." We are taxed almost 1/3rd of our income, these taxes of course going towards supporting "societal welfare". But the shift of powers from the states to the federal government hasn't stopped, indeed it increases with each presidency. Suppose in 20 years the amount of government programs we've allowed the federal government to install requires that we're taxed 2/3rd of our income?? If we follow this pattern, eventually we will become a government who's only goal is societal welfare, or in modern day terms, "socialism" or "communism", and the entirety of our income will go towards the support of government programs for communal benefit, and what happens then? Once we've achieved our goal of 'societal welfare'? Utopia? I think not; almost certainly history will repeat itself and just like the pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation, we will experience 'economic drought', starvation, slothfulness, apathy, etc. Interesting side note about Utopia, its derived from Greek: οὐ no, and τόπος, place, i.e. "no place" or "place that does not exist."

So it is then left for every American to decide for themselves, do we protect the liberty and property of every American, even if it means that those who are genuinely less capable in their circumstance (for whatever reason) will be exposed to poverty and poor health? Or do we voluntarily give up that part of our liberty, or earning rights, for the economic and medical betterment of society, even if it means that lazy Americans (and illegal immigrants) can, and will, live comfortably on your dollar by exploiting the system? If you lean towards the first, your beliefs are closer related to the republican party. If you lean towards the second, your beliefs are closer related to the democratic party.
Also to clarify, the terms 'conservatives' and 'liberals' came from the shift in powers during the Roosevelt administration. Those who opposed the expansion of the powers of federal government were called conservatives, while those who supported Roosevelt in his efforts to expand those powers were called liberals. Yet the conservatives were, and still are, the ones who are trying to preserve what I earlier called "traditional liberalism", where liberty is the highest priority. Modern day liberals are trying to get away from traditional liberalism in a movement thats referred to as 'Progressivism'.

So there you have it, American Government in a nutshell. As a citizen it is your obligation to voice your opinion in the democratic process, lest through our neglect we allow for further corruption of government. As I said, it is left for every man to decide whether to pursue traditional liberalism or America's current goal which I still am not sure of, but suspect is societal welfare. Each extreme has its merits and it's shortcomings. My goal isn't to say which one I think is better, only to log for myself a summary of these facts, and help others to understand that which they may not have previously known.