Sunday, March 21, 2010

Of Liberty and Barackracy

When President Barack Obama leaves office, he will leave Americans with less liberty than they had when he took office. Absorbing many liberties that Americans had, making decisions for Americans that they used to make for themselves, will be a vast array of new government agencies, the new Barackracy.

I chose the term “Barackracy” with care. It ends with a suffix similar to that in “democracy.” Democracy means rule or government by the people. Barackracy is similar to the well-known term, “bureaucracy.” That is not accidental. Bureaucracy was a pejorative term, coined in early modern times to criticize the French government, which had become by and large run buy unelected officials in government agencies, the bureaus. At the time, elective governments—and indeed, constitutions—in France would come and go with amazing frequency, but the bureaucracy and the bureaucrats who ran the operations of government would always be there and would carry on largely undisturbed. For much of what mattered in day-to-day life, France was ruled by the bureaus.

The bureaucracy helped to make France what it is today. More and more decisions over a wide range of matters in the ordinary lives of ordinary people were made by the bureaus. The Soviet Union learned from the French model and could probably not have been created without drawing upon that example. The Soviets expanded upon the French model, but the Soviets did not invent it. Even with the Soviet Union dissolved, the Russians are having a very difficult time establishing the liberties of the people, because the Russian bureaucracy survives at the core of the current Russian government.

When the United States was created we had no bureaucracy. In the early years of the Constitution we had only three departments of government, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the War Department. These three departments focused on the three acknowledged purposes of the federal government, to conduct our international relations, provide for the common defense, and have a national system of revenues to pay for it all.

Instead of bureaucracy, we had liberty, protected for a time by a federal system of government that dispersed governmental power among the states and within a system of checks and balances. The founding fathers had already seen how government limited freedom and how government tended to grow if left unchecked.

Each order from a bureaucrat limits liberty. The decisions of bureaucrats, operating on behalf of the government, have the authority of law and occupy the field where individual decisions used to operate. And, unlike private decisions, the mandates of the bureaucracy are backed by force. Several decades ago Alan Greenspan described the power of bureaucratic decisions this way:

At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
(Alan Greenspan, “The Assault on Integrity,” in Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p.119)

At the core of each proposal by Barack Obama to change America lie several new government offices and agencies that arrogate to themselves the power to make decisions that so far have been made by the people themselves. In the Obama “Cap and Trade” plan designed to save us from global warming (or now, “climate change” since it is no longer clear whether the earth is getting warmer or colder) are various agencies that will decide how people can use energy, what they can buy, how their products are made, and what they pay for them. The healthcare legislation will have an unnumbered collection of new government agencies to decide who gets to buy health insurance and from whom, at what price, with what features, covering which illnesses, under which treatments. The proposed new Barackracy will include new agencies to determine what financial services can be offered to you, who can offer them, and on what terms. It will also decide which banks and other financial firms can survive and which ones should be bailed out. There are other plans, too.

In each case, liberty is replaced by government decisions, made by people who are never up for election, accountable to no one. The Senate sponsor of the financial Barackracy bill, Senator Chris Dodd, said that with a new financial consumer regulator it will no longer be necessary to go back to Congress for new consumer legislation—the new Barackracy will have that legislative power. What if you do not like what the new agency does? Or, just what if you would like to decide for yourself? That liberty would be gone.

In the days ahead the power of the Constitution created to preserve the liberties of the people will be tested. The surrendering of our nation—described by Abraham Lincoln as possessing a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”— over to rule by the new Barackracy certainly seems to be inconsistent with both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. We will look next to the courts to uphold the Constitution and the liberty it was established to protect.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Of Literary Classics and Scripture

I was sad when I read the last book by Jane Austen. Her use of the English language delighted me with each and every volume, combined with her subtle wit and charming dialogues. I wanted to read more, but there was no more.

I felt much the same way when I could find no more to read from the pen of J.R.R. Tolkien. His fantasy works are the models of the genre, combining beauty, with plot, with never-ending-inventiveness that is marvelously varied and yet always internally consistent. Moreover, he is a great story teller.

J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series demonstrates that mankind has not exhausted its ability to produce classic literature. The stories combine entertainment with depth of theme and timelessness of message—imbued with a magical charm. I loved the last book of the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, even more than I loved the first, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. My only regret was that the series was over, done. I would be eager for more, if the quality could be maintained.

Aye, and there’s the rub. These authors are all too human. Either they die—as do we all—or the challenge of continually meeting the test of producing a classic becomes too daunting.

Is God subject to these same limitations? Certainly He does not die, but is the Author of the scriptures in danger of falling short of continuing to meet the high standards of light and inspiration that make the scriptures what they are? That is to say, will the Source of inspiration ever be less than eternally abundant? The answer to that is equally, no.

All of that being so, then why would any believer in God give any credence to assertions that the canon of scriptures is closed? Even more, why would any believer in God react with anything other than delight at the news that there is more of the word of God available.

That was certainly how I greeted the news of The Book of Mormon. Raised with a deep reverence for The Holy Bible, I was overjoyed to learn that there was even more scripture, more of the words of Christ and His prophets and apostles.

A belief in God must mean a belief in a living God, and if living, He must continue to do what He has always done, be a Creator, a Father, a Comforter, a Guide, and a Revealer of His will to His children.  Thus the Lord proclaims through His modern prophets and disciples,
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (Articles of Faith 9)
Our Heavenly Father has promised us more of His word. I can hardly wait for the next volume!