-Caveat Lector-
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Citation: The Progressive April 1999, v.63, 4, 17(1)
Author: Zinn, Howard
Title: Big Government for Whom? by Howard Zinn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT 1999 Progressive Inc.
I have seen some of my most stalwart friends flinch before the accusation
that they--in asking, let us say, for a single-payer health care system--were
calling for "big government." So insistent has been the press and the
political leadership of the country--in both parties--that "big government" is
a plague to be avoided, that otherwise courageous people on the left have
retreated before the attack.
It's an issue, therefore, that deserves some examination.
When Bill Clinton, in his 1996 campaign, announced happily that "the era of
big government is over," he was suggesting that the United States had gone
through an unfortunate phase that was now ended.
He was repeating the myth that there once was a golden past where the "free
market" reigned and the nation followed Jefferson's dictum: "that government
is best which governs least." Big government has been with the world for at
least 500 years, and became very big in this country (Jefferson never followed
his own pronouncement, as he doubled the territory of the government with the
Louisiana Purchase).
It was the rise of the modern nation state in the sixteenth century that
introduced big government to centralize the tax system and thus raise enough
money to subsidize the new worldwide trading organizations, like the Dutch
East India Company and the British East India Company. Both of these companies
were granted government charters in about 1600, giving them monopoly rights to
maraud around the world, trading goods and human beings, bringing wealth back
to the home country.
The new nation states now had to raise armies and navies to protect the
shipping trade (especially the slave trade) of these powerful companies, to
invade other parts of the world, to forcibly take land, for trading and
settling, from indigenous people. The state would use its power to drive out
foreign competitors, to put down rebellions at home and abroad. "Big
government" was needed for the benefit of the mercantile and land-owning
classes.
Adam Smith, considered the apostle of the "free market," understood very
well how capitalism could not survive a truly free market, if government was
not big enough to protect it. He wrote, in the middle of the eighteenth
century: "Laws and governments may be considered in this and indeed in every
case, a combination of the rich to oppress the poor, and preserve to
themselves the inequality of the goods, which would otherwise be soon
destroyed by the attacks of the poor, who if not hindered by the government
would soon reduce the others to an equality with themselves by open violence."
The American colonists, having fought and won the war for independence from
England, faced the question of what kind of government to establish. In 1786,
three years after the treaty of peace was signed, there was a rebellion of
farmers in western Massachusetts, led by Captain Daniel Shays, a veteran of
the war. The uprising was crushed, but it put a scare into those leaders who
were to become our Founding Fathers. After Shays's Rebellion, General Henry
Knox warned his former commander, George Washington, about the rebels: "They
see the weakness of government; they feel at once their own poverty, compared
to the opulent, and their own force, and they are determined to make use of
the latter in order to remedy the former. Their creed is that the property of
the U.S. has been protected from the confiscations of Britain by the joint
exertions of all, and therefore should be the common property of all."
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for 1787 was called to deal
with this problem, to set up "big government," to protect the interests of
merchants, slaveholders, land speculators, establish law and order, and avert
future rebellions like that of Shays.
When the debate took place in the various states over ratification of the
Constitution, the Federalist Papers appeared in the New York press to support
ratification. Federalist Paper 10, written by James Madison, made clear why a
strong central government was needed: to curb the potential demand of a
"majority faction" for "an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked object."
And so the Constitution set up big government, big enough to protect
slaveholders against slave rebellion, to catch run-away slaves if they went
from one state to another, to pay off bondholders, to pass tariffs on behalf
of manufacturers, to tax poor farmers to pay for armies that would then attack
the farmers if they resisted payment, as was done in the Whiskey Rebellion in
Pennsylvania in 1794. Much of this was embodied in the legislation of the
first Congress, responding to the request of the Secretary of the Treasury,
Alexander Hamilton.
For all of the nation's history, this legislative pattern was to continue.
Government would defend the interests of the wealthy classes. It would raise
tariffs higher and higher to help manufacturers, give subsidies to shipping
interests, and 100 million acres of land free to the railroads. It would use
the armed forces to clear Indians off their land, to put down labor uprisings,
to invade countries in the Caribbean for the benefit of American growers,
bankers, investors. This was very big government.
When the Great Depression produced social turmoil, with strikes and protests
all over the nation, the government responded with laws for Social Security
(which one angry Senator said would "take all the romance out of life"),
unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, work programs, money for the arts.
And in the atmosphere created by the movements of the sixties, Medicare and
Medicaid were enacted. Only then did the cry arise, among politicians and the
press, continuing to this day, warning of the evils of "big government."
Of course, the alarms about "big government" did not extend to the enormous
subsidies to business. After World War II, the aircraft industries, which had
made enormous profits during the war (92 percent of their expansion paid for
by the government), were in decline. Stuart Symington, Assistant Secretary of
the War for Air, wrote to the president of Aircraft Industries: "It looks as
if our airplane industry is in trouble, and it would seem to be the obligation
of our little shop to do the best we can to help." The help came and has never
stopped coming. Billions in subsidies poured in each year to produce fighters
and bombers.
When Chrysler ran out of cash in 1980, the government stepped in to help.
(Try this the next time you run out of cash.) Tax benefits, like the
oil-depletion allowance, added up over the years to hundreds of billions of
dollars. The New York Times reported in 1984 that the twelve top military
contractors paid an average tax rate of 1.5 percent while middle-class
Americans were paying 15 percent and more.
So it's time to gently point out the hypocrisy as both Democrats and
Republicans decry "big government." When President Clinton signed the crime
bill to build more federal prisons, when recently he called for billions more
for the military budget, he did not refer to his declaration that "the era of
big government is over."
Surely, with only a bit of reflection, it becomes clear that the issue is
not big or little government, but government for whom? Is it the ideal
expressed by Lincoln--government "for the people"--or is it the reality
described by the Populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease in 1890: "a government
of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street"?
There is good evidence that the American people, whose common sense often
resists the most energetic propaganda campaigns, understand this. Political
leaders and the press have pounded away at their sensibilities with the
fearful talk of "big government," and so long as it remains an abstraction, it
is easy for people to go along, each listener defining it in his or her own
way. But when specific questions are asked, the results are illuminating.
Again and again, public opinion surveys over the last decade have shown that
people want the government to act to remedy economic injustice. Last year, the
Pew Research Center asked if it is "the responsibility of the government to
take care of people who can't take care of themselves?" and 61 percent said
they either completely agreed or mostly agreed. When, after the Republican
Congressional victory in 1994 The New York Times asked people their opinions
on "welfare," the responses were evenly for and against. The Times headline
read: PUBLIC SHOWS TRUST IN GOP CONGRESS, but this misled its readers, because
when the question was posed more specifically: "Should the government help
people in need?" more than 65 percent answered in the affirmative.
This should not surprise us. The achievements of the New Deal programs still
glow warmly in the public memory: Social Security, unemployment insurance, the
public works programs, the minimum wage, the subsidies for the arts. There is
an initial worried reaction when people are confronted with the scare words
"big government." But that falls away as soon as someone points to the G.I.
Bill of Rights, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and loans to small business.
So let's not hesitate to say: We want the government, responding to the
Lincolnian definition of democracy, to organize a system that gives free
medical care to everyone and pays for it out of a reformed tax system that is
truly progressive. In short, we want everyone to be in the position of U.S.
Senators and members of the armed forces--beneficiaries of big, benevolent
government.
Because "big government" in itself is hardly the issue. That is here to
stay. The only question is: Whom will it serve?
Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States," is a
columnist for The Progressive.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
