Speak Out California! - Weblog: The Power of the Words "We, the People"

SPEAK OUT CALIFORNIA WEBLOG

The Power of the Words "We, the People"

October 30, 2007

As an experiment, try substituting the words, "We, the People" every time you read or use the word "government." Or use the word "our" instead of "the" when you say "the government." Our government, us, we, the people. This really does change the way we understand the relationship between our government and ourselves, doesn't it?

The other day I brought up the example of Ronald Reagan's famous saying, "Government is the problem." When you look at that saying in this new way, he is saying "We, The People are the problem." Doesn't that sound like he is expressing a profoundly anti-democratic sentiment? Is that really what we want our leaders to be promoting?

How many other places do we discover similar anti-democratic sentiments? How about when we hear about "limited government?" Are conservatives saying that they want to limit the power of the people? What about when they talk about getting rid of government regulations? Do conservatives want to stop the people from regulating what corporations do? When you think about what their words really mean, it sure starts to sound that way.

Conservatives have worked hard to make "government" a bad word. They complain about "big government." They complain about "government schools." But what happens when we substitute a form of "We, the People" into their slogans? The whole meaning seems to change.

Behind-the-scenes conservative leader Grover Norquist is known (to some of us) for having said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Think about what he is saying about democracy there. He wants to drown it!

Besides fewer decisions made by "the government," another thing conservatives say they want is more decisions made by the "private sector." Let's examine what these words really mean. Business.com offers this definition of "private sector": "Part of national economy made up of, and resources owned by, private enterprises." Wikipedia offers, "In economics, the private sector is that part of the economy which is both run for profit and is not controlled by the state."

So when conservatives say more decisions should be made by the private sector than by the government, aren't they saying that instead of We, The People making decisions we should hand the decision-making power over to the corporations? Is this really what we want?

Sure, the words about "smaller government" and "deregulation" sound good, but when you really think about what they are saying, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. At least, if we think democracy is a good idea, that is.

Posted by Dave Johnson

Comments

Dear Mr. Johnson:
I like your observations on President Reagan's famous phrase. Every American concerned about Politics needs to be familiarized with the "Jargon" U.S. politicians use for internal affairs/Politics, the "Jargon" they use for foreign policy and, the "Jargon" American politicians employ to address or direct themselves to the American Public by any and all means, (e.g., discourses, debates.). Americans concerned about Politics know very well President Reagan locutions were written on his own, laboring diligently and daily upon his prose-a prose of his own style and genre. He always referred to the Government as an entity, and he always made sure Americans understood this.
On October 27, 1964: "The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing. The address soon became known as the "Time for Choosing" speech, and is considered the speech that launched Reagan's political career.
Given the fact that we are loyal Americans, or assuming it to be a fact, take a look back at Mr. President Reagan's popularity:
In February 2007, a Gallup poll ranked him as number two with 16% of the vote after Abraham Lincoln. He ranked third with a 72% approval rating in a Rasmussen Reports July 2007 poll on presidents who served after World War II, fifth in an ABC 2000 poll of the public, and ninth in another Rasmussen 2007 poll of Americans. In a Siena College survey of over 200 historians, however, Reagan ranked sixteenth out of 42.
Why I mention all of this? ....Because I know he wanted to bring the American people/Government back to basics; shrink the government by cutting down bureaucracy, thereby reducing costs. The later, I mean, he wanted to reduce taxes and not anti-democratic sentiment.