BrianGarst.com

This video opened the DNC:

A lot of folks are talking about the declaration that “government’s the only thing that we all belong to,” with many responding with various forms of an argument denying our status as the property of government. And they should be talking about it; it’s a repugnant statement. Just not necessarily for that particular reason.

The verb belong, like many in the English language, can have multiple meanings. One implies ownership; another membership. The video quite clearly is intending to use the latter definition. Should the producers have seen the obvious meaning behind the statement using another common definition of belong – that we are owned by government? Probably, and it probably says something about their sensibilities that it either never occurred to them, or they didn’t care. But that’s a minor point.

I believe that the most powerful arguments are ones that, when an opponent’s statement is ambiguous,  avails the other side the benefit of the most favorable, reasonable interpretation possible. Defeating a stronger argument is a more significant feat, after all. In this case, I think it is clear the video is attempting to say that we all have membership in government, and therefore concludes that it is a binding and unifying force. That is the interpretation I am sure they intended, so it is the one  I prefer to address. And it’s more than sufficiently disagreeable to warrant heavy criticism.

So what of the idea that we all have membership in government, and therefore that it helps bind us together? On the first point, I think John Hayward does a good job of explaining why we don’t really all belong to government even in that sense:

The Left was in the middle of shrieking that the video wasn’t saying the government “owns” us; it was saluting the government as the collective expression of our combined will, justified in anything it wants to do – or make the rest of us do – because we sanctify it every few years through the ritual of voting.

Even this benign-sounding apologia for “government is the only thing we all belong to” is incredibly wrong-headed.  We most certainly do notbelong to the government. We are all members of the electorate, which is a very different thing.  Each of us lives beneath several distinct governments – federal, state, city – empowered to protect our rights, not act as the almighty executor of some “collective will” that exists only in the totalitarian fantasies of liberals.  There are very few areas of government action that command anything like overwhelming majority support from Americans, let alone nearly unanimous approval.

But it’s the idea that government brings us together that I find must detestable. Although the video did not say “big government,” that is what we have today so in context that is what it is defending. And big government is anything but unifying. Here’s what I wrote on the subject way back in 2008, at a time when both Presidential candidates were promising to heal all that which socially divides us:

Despite the modest downsizing after the end of the Cold War, by 2000 the federal government employed almost 3 million people, and government employment at the federal, state and local level now combine for 16% of the total national work force. There are ten additional cabinet positions compared to the beginning of the 20^th century. So in addition to spending more, they are also doing more.

We have all these bureaucrats to manage the regulations covering every aspect of our lives. Government tells us what we can eat, where we can smoke, what medicines we can use and what insurance we can purchase. It even tells us who we can marry and where we must send our children to school, along with what they must be taught.

This intrusion of government has sparked the “culture war.” It exists because government, by design, requires one-size-fits-all solutions on issues on which there is no one size that fits all. As an example, when parents cannot choose where to send their kids to school, they must fight within the political system to see that the schools teach what they want. Different parents have different ideas, often mutually exclusive, on what they want their children to learn. Because they must fight over control of the same system, some must inevitably lose.

When issues of importance to the people must be fought over, it’s understandable that the fighting can be intense. A lot is at stake in every election. Repeat this process again and again, on issue after issue, and it is little wonder why Americans are polarized today. Government has pit us against our fellow citizens in a battle for control of our own lives. It’s a battle we can only lose, and which the new administration’s big government programs can only make worse.

Government is inherently divisive, which is something I think our Founders understood and is one reason why they tried, though sadly failed, to severely limit its scope. But there are actually things which unify us. One is our understanding of our inherent rights as human beings. Our united belief in those rights – of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – is what led first to our rejection of unjust rule, and then eventually to the formation of our specific government. But that’s a far cry from saying that government itself is that unifying force.

The video contrasts our common government with the fact that we belong to different churches and clubs, implying that those individual choices are the things which divide us. This is exactly backwards, and betrays a dangerous affinity for collectivism.  Yes, people go to different churches and belong to different clubs, but the option to associate freely with the groups that we choose, without one person or group of people’s preferences for association being imposed on all others, is exactly what makes it possible for us to live together without constantly being at each other’s throats. Voluntary cooperation is the most unifying force of all.

But what if we did all belong to one church? Would that unify us? Obviously not, as that would require first forcing us all into the same church despite our individual preferences. And if we look at history, that’s exactly what Europe was like when our ancestors left for the new world. We have the freedom to do our own things, to lead our own lives, to associate with the people we choose, and to trade with the people we choose; those freedoms are what have historically unified our communities and allowed us to get along. On the other hand, thrusting upon us ever more one-size-fits-all government “solutions” to every problem, big or small, will continue to rip at the strained social fabric of our nation, dividing us ever more into mutually exclusive, non-cooperative camps.