In a speech at the University of Michigan on Saturday, President Obama castigated critics of recent government excesses, reminding them that “government is us”.
This seems innocent enough, but in fact it is chilling. The Founders saw a powerful central government as an unfortunate and dangerous necessity, the only way to administer certain tasks that cannot be performed by individuals. The apparatus of Federal government was to be a machine that existed solely in service to, and at the pleasure of, the free citizens of the United States. But here Mr. Obama tells us, explicitly and revealingly, that in his mind the State and the people are one.
“Government is us.” It is difficult to see how this proposition differs in any meaningful way from Mussolini’s words: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
12 Comments
Far be it from me to defend Obama, but is it possible that he was channeling Lincoln’s notion of government of, by, and for the people? (Emphasis on “by,” which dovetails with the idea that “government is us.”)
Maybe we need to parse the problem further, but it seems to me that the only way to know what Obama really meant by his statement is to ask Obama himself. Taken one way, “government is us” is a chilling notion that reflects a totalitarian mentality, such as when the arrest of a Chinese dissident is described by the authorities as having been done “according to the will of the people.”
Taken another way, however, Obama might simply have meant that our government is composed of our own citizenry, who are at least in theory no better than any of the rest of us, and not above the law. (I know, I know: cue mordant laughter.)
I suppose I’d need to read the text of the speech in question to know more. Right now, all I’m doing is offering at least two possible interpretations of an utterance whose context I haven’t seen. At this point, I won’t rule out the chance that Obama might have been implying something sinister. Or might not have been.
I’m sure that if pressed even lightly, Mr. Obama or any of his spokesmen would say that your interpretation is just what was meant. Certainly the association with his illustrious predecessor from Illinois sits comfortably enough.
But there are lots of ways to express the idea that the power of government arises from the people. “Government is us” is the sound-bite here. It says what it says.
And yes, you should read the speech. It’s here. It’s a good speech. Mr. Obama does this sort of thing very well.
It was indeed a good speech. I liked what O had to say about making an effort to broaden one’s horizons by meeting people from different walks of life, and also by reading sources that challenge one’s assumptions.
If ever there were two men capable of “parsing words” I suppose it proper and fitting they both be lawyers from Illinois and of suspect birth.
I agree, Kevin. It’s important to read contrary viewpoints. One often can’t be sure one is right until one clearly understands the ways in which others have gone wrong.
Just saw this article today. The writer’s critique focuses, at least at first, on the same “government is us” problem.
Yup, that’s a sharp little post. Thanks for the link. I liked this:
Granted, I am no one, and I don’t know what the “debate” is. But I do think that “all of government is inherently bad…” Let’s see, government reserves for itself the authority to determine who/what/when/where the use of coercive violence is “legitimate” — and without that authority, it isn’t government…
I think most conservatives would agree with you, Bob, that government needs effective restraints. Anarchy is a tough sell, though, in a crowded world. Doable, perhaps, in small and homogeneous communities, where people have a firm social understanding, and can pool their resources when necessary without too much friction. But anarchy doesn’t “scale well”.
I don’t know that anarchy doesn’t scale well. I do know that a monopoly on coercive force is evil, at any scale.
Hi Bob,
Yes, a true monopoly on coercive force is tyranny, which is why the Second Amendment is so important, and why there are circumstances in which the use of lethal force by private citizens is entirely legal.
Have you any examples of anarchy scaling well?
Malcolm – No, I don’t have any examples of anarchy scaling well. But then, I don’t know that the experiment has ever been conducted. And, just for the record, I’ve never imagined that a world without central government would have no need for coercive force — just that it wouldn’t be wielded monopolistically by a (corrupted) cadre who think they know how the rest of us should behave.