The General Welfare

British Columbia officer finds
naked couple having sex
in noisy, rocking dumpster.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal, a war crime, and a crime against humanity. Those who instruct people to do it, and those who do it, should be investigated, held accountable for it, and prosecuted if necessary. This all seems very simple and straightforward to me.

With that aside, with all the right-wing blather about Obama being a socialist/communist/fascist/Muslim/etc. (contradictory claims that indicate to me these people have no idea what they are talking about), I have been contemplating the responsibilities of government. If you abstract from our founding documents you come out with responsibilities something as follows:

1. Form a more perfect union.
2. Establish justice.
3. Ensure domestic tranquility.
4. Provide for the common defense.
5. Promote the general welfare.
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Obviously these are highly abstract goals. There seems to be differences of opinion about all of them, but in general I suspect most Americans would agree with these basic aspirations. Of course those states who are now mindlessly threatening to secede are not helping in forming a more perfect union. Similarly, those who would engage in illegal wiretapping and politicizing the Justice Department are not helping to establish justice. Domestic tranquility can hardly be achieved when the top 1 or 2 percent of the population holds more wealth than all the rest combined. While everyone would agree we should provide for the common defense, some of us think we have overdone this to the point of insanity, although it is sort of understandable when you take into consideration the military/industrial/political complex that controls the country. But even with these caveats it probably does secure the blessing of liberty, at least in some sense.

It is in the area of promoting the general welfare that we appear to have the most, and most important, disagreements. President Obama wants to have a system of universal health care, aid to the public schools and universities, an energy system less dependent upon foreign oil, attention paid to the problem of global warming, help to ailing banks and auto companies, and create job opportunities (among other things). In order to achieve these goals it will be necessary to impose various restrictions. To me, these seem to all be programs to promote the general welfare. The Republicans say “no” to all this and accuse Obama of trying to change our society into socialism rather than capitalism. Keep in mind these are supposed to promote the GENERAL welfare, not simply the welfare of generals or corporations. To me it is inconceivable that anyone in a so-called “civilized” society would not want workers to have decent wages and benefits, including universal health care and the means to a desirable and worthwhile education. Republicans apparently do not think so. I guess they prefer the earlier practices of child labor, minimum wages, no benefits, and little or no education (you know, something like Victorian England at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). They recoil in absolute horror when they hear the word socialism (which they have trouble separating from communism, and, I guess even fascism). As near as I can tell they seem to prefer a society in which we maintain an overly strong military (so their corporate masters can turn out more and more museum quality armaments at great cost) that will defend a territory within which we are allowed, even encouraged, to cannibalize each other. You know, social Darwinism, only the strong will survive, nature raw in tooth and claw, rugged individualism, no welfare, let ‘em fail, and so on (while at the same time they happily collect their various subsidies and benefits).

Much of the current Republican position stems from one of the most idiotic statements ever made, which they are fond of mindlessly quoting: “Government is not a solution to our problem, Government is the problem.” It is difficult to comprehend what Ronald Reagan actually meant by this. He clearly did not believe that we should not have roads and policemen and firemen, or no laws at all. What he apparently had in mind was any kind of Government regulations that would make corporations act for the general welfare. Apparently any attempt at all for the Government to regulate industries or profits in any way was socialism, as was any institution run by the Government rather than the private sector. I do not recall if he said anything about our socialistic Postal Service, but he clearly was opposed to any form of welfare (remember the “welfare queens” driving up in their cadillacs to pick up their welfare checks). Social Security was just another form of welfare to Reagan. He was also not very generous when it came to our socialistic public schools. Environmentalism was anathema to him. Far from the “Saint Ronnie” his Republican followers believe him to be, he was mostly a kind of evil twit who occasionally read his speeches from the wrong cue cards and sometimes confused reality with motion pictures. His fervent anti-communism (that I think he learned later in life from Nancy) led him to name names to the House Committee on Un-American Activities and thus deprive some of his colleagues of jobs and reputations. He ran up the national debt shamelessly so his followers can claim he single-handedly defeated Russian communism. His participation in the terrible Iran-Contra scandal has never been made entirely clear. He ignored the problem of Aids until it became much worse. We are now reaping much of what was sown during the Reagan years. Whatever he left as a legacy certainly does not include promoting the general welfare.

LKBIQ:
Ronald Reagan is the most ignorant president since Warren Harding.
Ralph Nader

TILT:
The term borborygmi, for stomach gurgling, is an onomatopoea that started with the Greeks.