…the Burkean question about Obama is whether the crises we are all confronting require or demand a seismic shift, to keep the American ship afloat. I have felt a deep ambivalence about this since one of my first posts absorbing what Obama meant. But I have to say, as the depth of the corruption of the last decade or so is revealed in so many places, I find myself increasingly persuaded by Obama that now may be the time for real government action.
Here are my concerns: a moneyed elite whose estrangement from the center of American life, proved by their obscene indifference to minimal propriety (go get ‘em, Maureen), has destabilized the critical middle of American polity, and begun to feed a cynicism about government that is corrosive of democracy; a culture of debt that has pervaded public and private America that bespeaks deep contempt for future generations; a physical infrastructure that is in obvious disrepair; an empire that seems to be running on auto-pilot, which keeps adding new provinces, with no way to sustain them in the long run; a healthcare system that seems to have built up as much waste as innovation and as much bureaucracy as the worst form of socialized medicine; an energy policy that keeps us in hock to Arab dictators and abuses our responsibility to be careful stewards of God’s creation.
Do I worry that government will over-reach? You bet I do. Is my instinct and inclination to do less than Obama plans? You bet it is. Am I nonetheless aware that the problems we face - cultural and well as political - might be ameliorated by a more active government prepared to address practical problems constructively and boldly? Yes.
At a time when popular faith in government has faltered - and often for good reason - it is destined to be tough sell when telling people that government is the answer.
Few semesters ago in one of my classes we were discussing the progressive movement of the early 20th century, with its credulous belief that government can make people’s lives better, and I almost laughed. Since Reagan, we’ve had the opposite impression of government: Government can only foul things up, private enterprise always acts more efficiently (and morally?) than government.
That’s been the orthodoxy; that was the crux of Jindal’s argument last night. But it was an argument formulated in the 1980s (actually before then) that pertained to conditions of the 1980s. Not to say there isn’t wasteful spending and too much bureaucracy now; but there are things government is uniquely positioned to do - and I am absolutely not convinced the market always acts more efficiently and morally than government.
If political ideologies ebb and flow, perhaps so too does the need for “a more active government prepared to address practical problems constructively and boldly.” Can government only be expensive and wasteful - or can there be another, better, more effective type of government that might come into being now?
We are going to find out.
