"Trust - In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?"

 Mark Twain, who for several years lived in Hartford, Connecticut, is alleged to have said: “If you don’t like the weather in New England now, just wait a few minutes.” That was true this past weekend here in Connecticut. On Saturday, a beautiful sunny day with temperatures in the mid 50s, my wife and I saw two bluebirds in a field near where we live. On Sunday I brushed four inches of snow off my forlorn Lexus.

 

We will be away visiting grandchildren over the next six nights, while their parents fly off, as our bluebirds apparently did not.

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.b;ogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Trust – In Government Bureaucrats or in the People?”

February 16, 2022

 

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers

of the society but the people themselves…”

                                                                                                                Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

                                                                                                                Letter to William Charles Jarvis

                                                                                                                20 September 1820

 

In 1863, on a cool, sunny November day in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, four months after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln gave a four-minute address. In it he reminded the audience: “Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The freedom we experience in this 233-year-old experiment, which is the United States, is based upon the individual citizen being the ultimate source of power, expressed through their representatives in municipalities, states and Washington, D.C. Granted, in times of emergency, presidents and governors have assumed exceptional powers, as did Lincoln when he signed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863. Nevertheless, fundamental to our democracy is a belief that the people have a greater understanding of their self-interests than do the politicians, bureaucrats and experts who operate the machinery of government. It is, collectively, the wisdom of the people that combine to produce the political strength of our communities, states and nation.

 

All elections are important and as usual we are being told that the current one is critical, because the two sides are so far apart in how they define individual freedom and in their visions for the future. Democrats, too often, believe that government bureaucrats and “experts” can better decide what people should do than individuals themselves: lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, what courses should be taught children in public schools, what forms of energy we should consume, and what opinions should be allowed on social media. Republicans, in general, believe that people make wise choices when offered alternatives: to mask or not; to take a vaccine or not; to have their children learn Critical Race Theory or not; to buy a hybrid, a gas-guzzler or an electric vehicle. They want options in school choice and be able to weigh alternatives.

 

While personally I believe in vaccines and feel certain that masks can, at a minimum, reduce the spread of germs, I have a stronger conviction in common sense – stay home if one has a temperature; when in the grocery store, be alert for (and avoid) those who appear to have a cold; don’t get too close to people, (though I make an exception with my wife, children and grandchildren). Democracy is threatened by those who want to control our daily lives and shut down debate. Democracy needs the freedom that diversity of thought brings. Born on campuses, wokeism has fledged onto Wall Street, into businesses, courts, entertainment, sports and politics. Woke censorship threatens liberty. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, in a 1970 speech, said: “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, debate and dissent.”

 

Politicians act most responsibly when they are closest to the voters who elected them. Democracy works best in local elections, where power is “held,” as Peggy Noonan wrote in last Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal, “closest to the individual and the family…” It is least effective in gerrymandered districts where one party has control and political minorities have no or minimal voice. Government has grown far bigger than the Founders envisioned. Perhaps that was inevitable, as populations soared and societal needs, such as defense, retirement, healthcare, education and social programs, increased. But each generation of politicians should be conscious of bureaucratic dysfunction and the potential for corruption as the size of government increases. Bureaucrats, whose careers depend on ever-expanding government, have little incentive to support those who want to limit spending and, thus, their career opportunities. The insidiousness of invasive government could be seen in last Friday’s release of details from the Durham Investigation, which showed that Mr. Trump was spied upon – something he has long claimed – not only during the 2016 campaign, but while he was in the White House. And mainstream media censored this news by ignoring it. 

 

Individually, we have all made poor decisions, but, in aggregate and over the years, a belief in the wisdom of the people is what distinguishes a democracy from an autocracy. Political correctness and identity politics are taking us in new and dangerous directions, which has led many to believe that a professional class of bureaucratic experts can be trusted to make better decisions than pesky voters. Two years after COVID-19, the governors of twenty-six states still exercise emergency powers. Is this warranted?

 

Granted, there is a fine line between personal, individual liberty and anarchy. But it is a line we have navigated for over 200 years. The word anarchy is derived from the Greek word meaning “having no ruler,” a belief system that rejects governmental authority. That is not the case of those of us who argue for greater individual freedom. We believe in government, but one that is limited and non-intrusive. Our differences lie in opposing opinions as to who to trust more with power – unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats or the people? We are commanded to follow the science, but what does that mean when we have experts who offer contradictory opinions? Which should we follow? Individuals should have choices. Science, by definition, is never settled. Like democracy, it is always a work in progress. In a perfect world, the media would help us reach independent conclusions by offering more than one side of a story, but, sadly, that is not the case, as they have become propaganda arms for their preferred political philosophies.

 

I, for one, trust the people, whether it is truckers in Canada or parents in Virginia.