Discussion in my history class the other evening about the Progressive era, the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th and the movement that in fact realized many of its most ambitious aims - from reforms in the way government related to the people (direct election of Senators, for example) to Prohibition, to the pure food movement, to the income tax itself.

And the common thread through all of this was at the time, there was this sense among the population that government was, or could be - and should be - the answer.

Government should use its power to intervene on behalf of the everyday citizen. The more we talked about it, the more I realized that the idea was completely, utterly foreign to me. In part because I’m a child of the Reagan ’80s, when government was specifically defined as the enemy, as the problem. And ever since then, I think that impression is one that has been passed down to subsequent generations.

And it’s not an idle impression; I think there’s probably something to it. One reason I haven’t been a big bandwagoneer when it comes to the issue of, say, health care reform - socialized medicine, whatever you want to call it - is because the “solution” proposed by those who would reform the system we have now essentially involves government taking the reins, taking over many of the tasks now done by private insurers. And I simply have zero confidence that the government won’t screw it up.

Cynicism, to be sure, but cynicism borne of experience, I think. The idea that government can save us might as well be expressed in Greek or Sanskrit; I just can’t understand it, can’t understand that there was a time when people legitimately believed that this might be the path to salvation. Were they naive? Stupid? Was the nature of government so different then? Is this, what we have today, really something new under the sun?

I don’t think that it is. As per this discussion, people have lost faith in their politicians - and that’s both at the national level and the very local level. Artie See asks, do you trust Rick Gray more than your dog? And I probably like Gray more than most on this board, I don’t know; but the the point is that even these people, so close to home, betray the trust or are thought to betray the trust. And whatever’s happening at this level, you can bet it’s happening up there, writ large.

And in fact, that’s your key to understanding the system. If Rick Gray is in thrall to the monied intrests here in Lancaster - don’t you think the president, whomever he or she is, whatever party they come from - don’t you think they are going to be in thrall to the monied interests, only more so? And the great game has been to get the average citizen to look the other way, to think about something else; to be distracted by the culture war or abortion; yes, abortion is the perfect thing, literally a question of life and death that those who run the show have absolutely no interest in resolving whatsoever because as you and I argue about it, they are busy doing something else.

The thing about the Progressives - the precious thing; the unbelievably naive thing, maybe - is that they really believed in revitalizing democracy by using government to level the playing field, which would empower average citizens. I think - in different terminology - that’s the exact thing that the denizens of this board think needs to happen, though they’d never invoke government to do it.

But how, then? A nascent citizens’ movement on the blogs; maybe. But we lose sight of how much of an echo chamber this online existence can be. I got a kick, watching WGAL’s coverage of the county budget meeting last night; here’s Harper with his “Official Observer” shirt. I think that’s hilarious; he gave me one of those shirts once, God knows what I ever did with it. But it occurred to me as I watched - my parents, for example, have no idea what that means, “official observer.” What percentage of Lancaster Countians actually do? Is the number really growing? Or are those motivated enough to join the conversation really little more than an exclusive club, talking amongst themselves?

I don’t know, it’s an interesting question. This is democracy with a small “d,” as it has been, throughout much of our history. But where it was once borne of idealism, now it seems to come from cynicism and anger and despair. Maybe it did then, too, and we just read the santized version.