And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that believe the solution to every problem is more government.
This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology.
Logistics alone make it impossible for a government to solve every citizen’s problem. Yet, a bigger government is expected to do just that.
Big government is inflexible; it cannot respond to priorities because, over time, there are too many competing priorities. The greater the bureaucracy grows the more it becomes impersonal, wasteful, over-stretched, and difficult to reign in.
Furthermore, big government does not trust you to know how best to run your life, yet other imperfect beings are somehow capable of properly directing your life as soon as they are employed by the government. People are fallible, and so is the state.
If liberals are right about the role of government, then how did these scandals happen? Do we truly need more government to stop these things from happening?
In Benghazi, should even more officials debated whether to send troops to save our people? Should there have been more security?
Perhaps there should not have been a consulate in a hot zone in the first place, especially one so ill protected. How effective can an isolated diplomatic post on lock down really be? It seems more prudent to have a smaller footprint in the middle extreme conflict areas (esp. when our military is not in the field), which would save more lives and treasure.
Regarding the IRS, do auditors need more laws and supervisors to prevent such abuse? What happened is already illegal.
Then again, maybe a simpler tax code would solve the issue. If the law is so simple even a caveman can do it, then less IRS agents are needed, or conversely, it would free up existing agents to more quickly process paperwork.
And finally, regarding the DOJ wiretapping the AP--do we need more Patriot Act provisions to protect the US by suspecting every citizen and stopping potential whistle blowers? Does the government need more power to track everyone’s movements and communications now that modern technology gives them the ability to do so?
I think we need to take a serious look at the Patriot Act and begin rolling it back. Our government was founded on the belief that we are all “innocent until proven guilty” and should be afforded due process. In order for our Republic to function, we must be able to trust the government to faithfully protect our rights and privacy. However, treating everyone like a suspected criminal only weakens our confidence in the government’s willingness to safeguard our liberties. A government dedicated to civil rights is more trusting and less invasive, which compels it to be smaller.
Sometimes, no matter how sound an idea is, both rationally and emotionally, no amount of debate will convince an opponent of the inherent fallacy of his position. In such cases, it is sometimes better to let our adversaries have their way so they can inadvertently hang themselves with their own errant ideas. This week is a perfect example of that. More government would never have solved these issues, nor many others faced by administrations past and present.
This is not the end of the Obama Presidency (unless a bombshell drops), and cries of impeachment by certain Republicans only hurt conservatives who are focused on winning the wars of ideas, not scoring short term political points against a man that will not be on the ballot in 3 years.
As Americans, we all want our country to be the shining city on the hill, but once again events prove that big government liberal ideology is not the right path.