Liberal Vs. Conservative, a play on words to enslave a nation, Part 4A
 

By Harry Felker

The New Face of Statism

We are witnessing a new Statism on the rise, the American variety, and in true American tradition, it is a melting pot of other varieties past and present. It has become a blatant statement in the past two decades, but this is a long running theme of American politics, larger government. There are many whom argue the case for the government, whom argue that the government is necessary, and it must have some girth in order to be effective. These are the arguments that create the liberty vs. security debate in all orders and functions, as giving leeway to size in government is a form of security and always comes as a price to the liberty of the people. To further elaborate, let us take a look at who is arguing this case, the majority of the government is not fighting over liberty vs. security, but rather what form the security takes. The government leaves the debate to the people, in order to polarize them, so their creeping assault on the liberty can continue swaying from social to enforcement security. I intend to show the debate as the people see it, as the government sees it, and how it truly is, furthermore provide the basis of the argument for my new Statist regime theory.

Ben Franklin understood the dangers in the Constitution he took part in, he had made such public by his quote, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” He knew full well, those who were sworn to protect it would attack the republic outlined in the Constitution, and it was the people that would have to maintain it. With this inherent flaw from the beginning, our founders believed the goodness of men would persevere over the will of the elected officials, and though many tried, the force given to the republic was found to be too much. Alas, hindsight is 20/20, and so, we are left with picking up the pieces of centuries of a failed experiment in liberty, beset on two fronts, by government and those that support it blindly.

A little from the left, a little from the right

The real question that should be burning in the forefront in your mind is, “What is this new Statism?” It is not so easy to explain, though it is a simplistic concept, I am certain that the evidence of this phenomenon cannot elude everyone. It is based on the design of Divide and Conquer, that is, divide the people in order to create the regime, with whoever takes office. Take the most sensitive issues of people, make them government business and that is it, once the government plays a hand in any sensitive personal issue, it becomes a great debate among the people.

While the people are bickering between each other over the grand debate of what the government solution should be, there is always a small faction of people these are rational people, who state the government is not the answer. These people, wholly committed to the liberty side of the debate are usually ignored, painted as enemies of both right and left (I have personal experience in this). The majority of the people, in contrast, passionately debate what government solution is best, how the government can intervene in the personal lives of the people to make the situation better. This is the cue for the politicians, where to line up in the debate, and as right and left take sides, the majority has already spoken, more government is the answer.

This new Statism falls between communism and fascism; it has the collective tone of shared responsibility and duty to the less fortunate along with the nationalist tone of superiority. One need only look at the actions of the presidents in the last two decades, we see a blurring of the lines between left and right, tax and spend republicans along with corporatist democrats, all justifying their positions by the talking points proper to their factions. What the majority of people do not realize is the only progression the government takes in these issues is the enlargement of the government itself, these politicians are wholly committed to the security portion of the debate, and not to liberty. The answer from the government is the positive obligation on the people to give up property for the needs of others; this is welfare.

I will coin a term, Welfarism, to describe what this new Statism is, because that is its main feature, welfare, or the creation of a welfare state. I know many assign this tag to the left wing of politics, but I assure you, it is prevalent on both ends of the political spectrum. Welfare is a security issue, it is the obligation of the people to pay for the security of all others, be it financial or physical, and this is an important factor of welfare, it is not only securing the finances, it is securing the persons. Welfare is every aspect of government action and every aspect of government expansionism; it is providing something for people that they cannot provide for themselves.

This is best understood when one understands the nature of government, that is, what government does naturally, it makes itself necessary, and in this necessity it is allowed the excesses that create the welfare state. Have no illusion; the military, police and all other enforcement services are just as much welfare as entitlement checks, free health care and all social benefits. If one looks at the left arguments for social welfare and follows them to the cause, one will find that government intervention in business, championed by the left under “worker’s rights” and “equality”. Just as when one examines the right arguments for enforcement welfare and follows them to the cause, one finds government intervention on the private individual, championed by the right under “morality” and “patriotism”.

Welfarism, in total, is a theory of positive obligation, using the state as the holder of positive rights in the name of the majority; it is the inherent tyranny of democracy in the name of the majority the government dictates the lives of others. The focus of the obligation varies, but it is present in all forms of government, that is left, right and current “mainstream” Libertarianism. The left supposes that you have to give up something for the benefit of others in the process of taxation for social benefit, the right for enforcement protection, and “mainstream” Libertarianism (in an insidious variation of this ideology) for the liberty they cling to as their focus, the people are obligated to, for lack of a better term, baby sit government. As plainly as can be put, all factors of any government in America are inherently linked to this ideology of Welfarism, that is, they imply a positive obligation on the people, or giving up liberty, in exchange for a degree of security.