Serving proudly since 1873 as the beautiful Nebraska Panhandle's first newspaper

Learning from Our Founding Fathers

I was looking through my bookshelves recently when I stumbled upon a book of quotes from Thomas Jefferson. “That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” “No government can continue good, but under the control of the people.”

The first quote caught my attention, leading to recollection of a quote that is probably from Jefferson, but with some of the meaning removed: The government is best which governs least. Minimalist government sounds good on the surface. The more a government does, the less we have to, and the more we can blame someone else if plans go awry. Additionally, society is heavy with examples of too much power in one place leads to corruption. That is clear before we talk about Party this and Party that.

But the real education is in Jefferson’s complete quote. He didn’t say “what is the least we can expect from government.” It is like a basic computer equation in reverse. This can happen, if this happens. The best government is that which governs least, if the people are disciplined. What does it mean to be disciplined, to be people who discipline themselves?

I would suggest it is related to how the government was intended, designed. The American government is often referred to as the great experiment, because this level of involvement by the citizens was a rarity at that point in time. For much of the world it still is.

We have, however, evolved (?) to the point where it is expected that for a person to serve at a specific level he or she must have climbed the political ladder to reach that point. That person didn’t spend much of his life in private enterprise and suddenly make a left turn. The exceptions are viewed like finding the proverbial unicorn and no one quite knowing what to do with it.

It leads to the question of do we want a government that governs least, because it will cost us. It will require sometimes giving up our quiet evenings to get involved in the process, critically reviewing the content before us and the candidates promoted by any given Party. It may even require us to run for office. It is better to take second place and give voters a choice than for an election to be little more than a confidence vote.

The two quotes I found early in the book on Jefferson are related. “No government can continue good, but under the control of the people.” How often have any of us thought or heard someone else say “What’s the point. My vote (voice) doesn’t count. The government doesn’t represent my view on life anyway.”

The dilemma isn’t easy to confront. It takes battling for what you believe in, allowing yourself into a fight you may not have every considered. It takes getting involved until the politicos are surprised when you are not there.

Jefferson also said “if people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will son be in as sorry a state as the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Several years ago there was a television show, low budget time travel heavy on drama, called “Sliders.” In one episode, this awkward group of adventurers ended up in a place that looked familiar, until they tried to order a cheeseburger, the big, greasy, heart attack calling but still delicious kind, from a street vendor.

The food cart operator finally said he’d love to sell them lunch, but they need to show a proof of certificate first. The government decided what you could eat by reports from your doctor. The show became a little less funny when since its airing metropolitan centers have promoted limits on sugared drinks, fast-foods and recently pushing “near-meat” sandwiches.

The government is now at a place where it can tell us what we can and cannot eat or drink. It is under the authority of what it says is for our good. Isn't freedom about accepting our own risks?

 

Reader Comments(0)