It is often considered the most basic question in modern civics.  It can define the distinctions between liberal and conservative, and is at the heart of many of the most heated debates in a free society.  It is posed in many different ways, and comes in a variety of applications.  And a voter’s take on this question tacitly underpins the motives which determine how he or she will vote in just about every election.  The question: “How big should the government be?”

           Perhaps we could rephrase the question and ask, “How far should government control go?” or “Where is the point at which the government has become too intrusive in our private lives?”  In post-9/11 America, our question tends to appear in a more roundabout way: “How much individual liberty will the citizenry willingly give over to their government in order to maintain their security?”  Or maybe the simplest form is the best: “What is the purpose of government?”

Government 101

           If the simplest form of a question demands the simplest answer, then we should posit the answer thus: the purpose of government is to govern—nothing more, nothing less.  But this does not answer the question as much as it merely shifts our primary attention to defining the word govern.  Dictionaries do little good here, because they usually go no farther than the idea of regulation, the maintaining of order in a society, or keeping a culture within a set of parameters for the purpose of control.

           But it is obvious that this question has a highly philosophical dimension, and begs that we define what areas of our lives the government has a right to get involved in, and what areas it needs to stay out of.  Accordingly, justice and fairness would demand that these boundaries be consistent for all citizens without discrimination.  Therefore it becomes vital to determine what it means to govern, and how that definition applies to our current state of affairs.

           Not surprisingly, when the need came about for the writing of the United States Constitution the framers of this new American nation had been considering this problem for many years.  By that time they had had at least two unique experiences which served as major influences on their ideas for the new document.  The first was the inadequacy of the preceding document, the Articles of Confederation, to be a strong unifying force necessary for the operation of the young nation.  It had served its purpose well enough during wartime, but after the revolution had ended several rather gaping holes began to appear, most notably the lack of a federal infrastructure and financial base.

           The second was the memory of the heavy-handedness of British rule under King George III.  The colonies at the time had no representatives in Parliament, and thus had no voice in its actions toward them.  The injustice of “taxation without representation” became one of the primary grievances of the colonists, and when an appeal was made to the king for dialogue and reconciliation, he refused and declared the colonies to be in rebellion.  Thus was the potential for abuse by a ruling potentate demonstrated to the colonists; therefore as the fledgling nation formed, its founders knew that they must make every effort to prevent such situations from arising in the new government.

           With this background in mind, it becomes clear that the attitude of the writers of the new constitution wanted a government that had strength, but also possessed a certain leanness that would keep its authority from overwhelming its citizens.  They certainly did not want a weak confederation, but neither did they want an unresponsive elite that would accrue power and become a burden to the people it was intended to benefit.  So it is fortunate for us that they set forth in writing their answer to our question: “What does it mean to govern?”

The Preamble and its values

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.

-- Preamble, U. S. Constitution

           This six-fold statement of the purpose of government forms a fairly concise yet significant summary of the philosophy that would be followed by the framers as they formulated the elements of their new experimental republic.  And though they may appear at first to be broad, sweeping generalizations, they are in fact more specific and more limiting to the role of government than any document which had come before.  It was clearly intended to give the United States the kind of internal strength necessary to stand among the nations of the world, yet not wield such oppressive demands as had the English king, whom they had considered overbearing and tyrannical.

           Of course, at this point the logical place to go with this article might be to examine each of these phrases in an attempt to see what is meant by words such as “union,” “tranquility” or “welfare.”  Then we would look at many supporting documents like the Federalist Papers or the letters of Thomas Jefferson to try to determine the mindset of the writers as they brainstormed, debated, and finally wrote our definitive document.  Or we could break down and actually read it and see what it really says; and let us also remember that what it doesn’t say is often as telling as what it does say.

           In case this approach seems too easy, let us be reminded that in reading the background materials we will sample various opinions from those with many points of view; but if we read the final product we will get a sense of their consensus, uncluttered and agreeable to them all.  And in the process, we will understand why this document is often touted as one of the premier documents in world history which sets boundaries to a government’s role, rather than proclaiming expanded powers.

           A temptation which usually arises at this point in such a discussion as this is invoking of so-called “elastic clause” (Article I, Section 8, final paragraph), which over time has been so stretched and pulled on that, like old underwear, it no longer fits as it was originally intended to.  It would ultimately be much more useful to return to the original question of this article and see if there are boundaries to government’s power, and to determine where they reasonably should be drawn rather than where they could be compromised in the name of convenience.

In case you missed them

           Understanding where these implied parameters of the government lie as they are described in the preamble will require a thorough reading and a following through to the end of their writings—and by that I don’t mean the signatures.  Many of the document’s writers stated adamantly that among the first laws that would be passed by the new government there needed to be a “bill of rights” that would assure the citizens that this nation would not allow its civic power to expand as other nations had, and to thereby swallow up the individual freedoms that the founders held so dear.  These additions came in the form of ten amendments to the Constitution, and were ratified a mere four years and three months after the main manuscript was completed.

           This “Bill of Rights” consisted of several statements which told the citizenry that there were certain aspects of our lives into which the government was not to intrude.  These areas included the spoken and written word, religious worship and expression, private property, and the right to seek from their leaders “a redress of grievances.”  Of course, many of the ideas which led to these laws were likely drawn from preceding documents such as the Magna Carta and the lesser known Warsaw Confederation on Religious Freedom of 1573.  But never before had any government actually based itself from the outset on such firm and sweeping principles of individual liberty.  And among all these, the most constricting statement came at the end:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

-- Tenth Amendment, U. S. Constitution

Big government vs. morbidly obese government

           Even the most casual look at the list of expenditures of the federal budget will reveal deep governmental involvement in areas of activity for which it was never intended or designed.  Uncle Sam has now become our retirement annuity program, our educator, our financial safety net, our chief medical researcher, our arts patron, our insurer, and if not our employer, then our primary negotiator with our employer.  Most corporations and businesses are no longer nearly as centralized as our government, nor are many charities, religious organizations, or social clubs.  There are few instances where the federal government has restricted itself from exercising a further prerogative by taking away another role from elsewhere—two recent notable examples being the failure to enact a federal health-care system in the mid 1990’s, as well as the success of the “experiment” of allowing state governments to manage their own welfare programs.

           Many would ask at this point, “But if the government doesn’t do these things, who else can we count on for help?”  While it is true that many government programs and entitlements arose as responses to genuinely felt needs, this question rings hollow in light of recent events.  We watch on our TV news channels as the federal disaster relief agencies flail about ineptly in the face of nature’s fury, we hear dire predictions about the insolvency of the Social Security system, we reel in fear over crime rates and are amazed at the deficiencies of our judiciary system when it comes to the prosecution of criminals, and we marvel at a gridlocked Congress which is too mired in partisanship to agree on any reasonable course of action which could possibly be politicized.

           It is high time to admit that the common resources which currently lie under federal control are stretched much too thin.  Its forays into areas that are more wisely reserved “to the states respectively, or to the people” could be curtailed with a minimum of agony to those who benefit from them if the powers-that-be will simply confess that these programs need to be delegated to more local levels of authority or to the private sector.  The recent move of the welfare system to state control has proven beneficial on many levels, not the least of which being the innovative administration techniques of some states which resulted in the more efficient use of the available funds.  It would be quite useful to investigate which other federal programs might be more effective if they were likewise delegated (or dare I say done away with); not only might there be other instances of programs being more successfully handled, but the intent of our Founding Fathers in the writing of the Tenth Amendment would once again be preserved.

Back to business

           Clearly the men who authored these writings felt that their new government should be kept simple; it only takes a minimal amount of imagination to conjure up what their reaction would be if they had known about today’s situation.  They also understood that no such document is perfect, so if there was any question about where any rights belonged, we must default in favor of the citizen (therefore the Ninth Amendment, which stipulated that just because a particular right may not have been specified, it must still be considered retained by the people).  If the government was indeed to be a republic, then it must not be a burden to those it serves—as was their experience under British rule—but it must sustain order, protect our liberties, and after that just stay out of the way.

           When a government attempts to do something beyond governing, at best it cannot help but display a vast ineptitude, and at worst it will collapse under its own weight as did the Soviet Union and other nations caught up in the Marxist experiment.  Businesses must be allowed to do business, religion must be free to be religious, and charities and social organizations must be the ones who aid the under-privileged, disadvantaged or otherwise challenged.  Yet rather than seeing this clearly as the foundation principle for a government of the free, when a social need arises politicians and non-politicians alike scramble to create some new bit of non-governing for the government to administer, and then they ineluctably fail to successfully sustain it.