America is great because...

I have heard it said that the main difference between the political right and left in this country can be defined as the following:

“The political right believe that America is great because of its people. The political left believe that America is great because of its Government.”

Traditionally, this definition has fit. In the past, Conservatives believed that America functions best when the size and scope of Government are limited. They believed that Government is not the solution to all of our problems. In most cases, Government IS the problem. (Of course, this philosophy doesn’t define the current Republican Party. They have separated themselves from their Conservative beliefs in favor of increased Government spending and size.)

Leftists, on the other hand, tend to view Government as the one and only answer to any problem that comes our way. What happens when we recognize problems in our Health Care system? Government? Our school system? Government. Our retirement? Government. Our infrastructure? Government. To them, almost nothing can be solved by the private sector. According to Hillary Clinton:

“When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.

Case in point, check out this website.


The website is called “Government is Good.” The title alone is quite telling. Wouldn’t you agree? This website is essentially one big argument in favor of Statism. The main author Douglas J. Amy is, not surprisingly, a College Professor of politics.

The first thing that strikes me as odd, besides the fact that anyone could put this much faith in Government, is the fact that this supposedly educated man, this Professor who is responsible for educating the young minds at Mount Holyoke College in the ways of political theory, constantly refers to our system of Government as a “democracy.”

Sadly, many of you reading this don’t recognize the problem with that statement. I have stated it before, but it doesn’t seem to have registered. Thus, it bears repeating in large capital letters.


There is a huge difference. Look it up. But, this professor seems stumped by this single, simple point. That doesn’t instill the greatest confidence in his credentials. But, that is not the only problem with his writings. We’re just getting warmed up.

Take this post for instance. He attempts to argue that our daily lives are greatly improved by the amazingly proficient institution of Government. Without these wonderful Government programs, our daily lives would be in disarray. We would be miserable.

I won’t even post excerpts from this entry. You simply have to read the entire thing for yourself. It is frightening.

But, after you read the full post, read this rebuttal from TJIC. He goes through point-by-point, explaining the factual and logical inaccuracies of Professor Amy’s post. Here are a couple of good examples:

PROFESSOR AMY: Government also helps you own your house in more than the legal sense. On a more practical level, the federal government actually gives you money every year to help pay for your house. It’s called a mortgage interest tax deduction

TJIC: So I earn $100, and the government would normally steal $30 of that, but because I fill out certain forms, the government only steals $20 of it…and the $10 that the government would have stolen, but chose not to, is a “gift” ?

PROFESSOR AMY: As you are getting dressed, a glance outside the window shows some ominous clouds. You check the weather on your TV. All theseweather forecasts are made possible by information gathered and analyzed by the National Weather Service, a government agency.

TJIC: Information gathering and collection… that couldn’t possibly be done by the free market.

Also: just because the government does something and provides it for free, that’s no argument that there were not private suppliers before the government stepped in, nor is it an argument that there would not immediately be private suppliers if the government stepped out.

If the government ran supermarkets, should I believe that in the absence of government supermarkets, the only alternative is that everyone would starve?

PROFESSOR AMY: And state drivers license examinations ensure that all drivers are at least minimally competent and can actually see the road.

TJIC: False. Most states require that drivers achieve this standard once in their lives…and it may have been 50 years earlier.

Professor Amy’s arguments consist largely of factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies. But, the most overwhelming argument that he seems to use time and time again is that if the Government is performing some service or activity, that service or activity could not be handled by the private sector. The private sector is not capable, willing, able, etc. to handle it. If the Government didn’t do it, it wouldn’t get done.

History has shown us that this is not the case.


Post a Comment

<< Home