Our National Dialogue

My generation is entrenched in the philosophy that the government is our enemy.  Reagan's legendary words in his inaugural speech in January of 1981 have echoed throughout the decades: "The government is not the solution to our problem.  The government is the problem."  

Reagan's legacy is revered, but what was his legacy?  He certainly changed the course of this nation.  He is credited with ending the Cold War, cutting taxes, and piling up the largest deficit in the history of the United States.  Those are aspects that are well-remembered, but one legacy that he, I guess, inspired, for a lack of a better term, is the long-term loss of national confidence.  

Certainly confidence has swayed throughout the years.  Confidence was probably low in the 1930's when President Hoover proved himself to he incapable of pulling the nation out of a crippling economic depression.  Perhaps confidence was low during the middle of the Civil War when Lincoln's generals were unable to win any major battles against the Confederate Army.  But in times when the citizens of this country have questioned the legitimacy and credibility of the government, the nation rebounded within a few years.  Roosevelt was elected and started the Great Society that reinvigorated the economy and Lincoln won the war and freed the slaves.

What seems different about today is that for 26 years -- my entire life -- this nation has been trying to actually eliminate government.  We have lost all confidence that "the system" is working.  The powerful conservative leader, Grover Norquist, says that he wants "cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."  The notion that government is an agent of bad has become our national dialogue.  It was legitimized and solidified 15 years later when a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, said that the "era of big government is over," in his State of the Union Address. 

Americans haven't always thought of government this way.  Last Fall I went to the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York, where I saw a campaign poster when FDR was running for Governor.  It's slogan: "Keep Good Government."  I was shocked that despite the inevitable shortcomings of any governmental body, the people wanted to maintain their government.  Interesting considering that "change" is the hot buzz word that every political campaign associates with.

What are the consequences of a negative national dialogue?  For one, I don't see how we can function as a society if we have no confidence in our government.  If we consider our government -- "the system" -- some faceless antagonist, we remove ourselves from engaging in the political process.  It's okay to be dissatisfied with the way business in conducted.  It's okay to be dissatisfied elected officials.  Those are healthy signs of Democracy.  But I don't think it's okay to label the institution of government as the enemy.  After all, WE are the government.  The bottom line is that a disengaged and disinterested population breeds an insufficient government.

In the upcoming presidential administration, we have many crucial improvements to make in our government.  The shortfalls and failures are numerous.  But even with those recent failures in consideration, we cannot deny that our government is working.  Even after seven years of mismanagement, we still have one of the highest standards of living in the history of the world. 

Although Bill Clinton helped to erode the image of government, his words after the Oklahoma City bombing can help transition this country into a positive and empowering national dialogue: "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending to that you can love your country, but despise your government." 

How would things be different if our national dialogue revolved around liking, or even loving, our government?  Who is the leader that can make that transition for us?