The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

Two quick things to Whatever.

1. The “most Ron Paul supporters are students” claim is an informal observation based on what I see. Just by looking at the fanatic fans waving signs around wherever they can get media coverage, a lot wear college sweatshirts and look like they’re the right age to be in college.

A lot of Ron Paul supporters are college-age students, at least, especially considering that his biggest backing has come from online — the hip place for young people to waste their time. It probably helps, too, that servicemen, who are skewed younger owing to the nature of the profession, have donated to Paul more than any other Republican candidate.

In any case, I jumped to conclusions at least slightly. Good catch.

2. Social Security is another type of handout in that it’s the government taking your money and giving to people. It’s just delayed over time, and they give it back to you. Supposedly. In that sense, Social Security is de facto welfare, but for old people.

And now, the crux.

The economic reality of our times is that people choose to live beyond their means. The subprime crash is, for lack of a better term, a prime example of that. People who couldn’t afford a house, without any change in their income, chose to buy a house, anyway, seemingly unaware that they still couldn’t afford it.

The economic reality of America is that the poverty line is above the standard of living in most countries.

The flaw in thinking is that everyone in America can be above average. That there is an average means that there will be people who are below average.

My solution: improve education. Make a high school diploma worth something again. Give students the option to enter a high school that offers job training, rather than the option to drop out.

Then, raise the lamentable standards until the academic diploma doesn’t mean a graduate had barely reached the cusp of mediocrity.

Since the Cold War, and as manufacturing jobs in other countries grew, America’s strength has been in innovation, if not also research and development.

College students need to hit the ground running when they’re freshmen, not once they reach their senior year or grad school.

Perhaps a flaw in Ron Paul’s strict constitutionalist thinking is that education becomes a state issue. If he were elected president, the only reforms would involve cutting away the power of the federal government. In his thinking, individual states would need to push their individual reforms, which could turn out to be a chaotic, frenzied process.

The merit of this thinking, of course, is that government can’t be large and efficient. There are too many hoops to jump through and loopholes to abuse, and too much oversight is required. Then, we need oversight on the oversight.

Some degree of fiscal responsibility is attainable. Just not with this huge government.

How long will it take for the body politic or the general public to accept this? Will they ever?

I think you are leaving out another potential force for cultural change – economic reality. The New Deal was a sea-change in peoples thinking about the role of government in their lives that came about because of the Great Depression. In the not so distant future, social security and medicare will account for just about every dollar of the federal budget. That means some profound decisions are going to be made about what government can and can’t do and what it is going to cost each of us. Perhaps people will decide to continue to expand the services of government and dramatically increase their taxes (ironically at the same time that Europeans are starting to revolt against such systems). I find that unlikely though. More probable is that economic crisis is going to force all of us to receive less and pay more. That will be the point at which the culture must change and it will be interesting to see not only how the body politic responds but also our so called intellectual community, and which way we go.

Are most of Paul’s supporters students? I’m really not sure, but that would be pretty hilarious, considering the amount of subsidization involved. It’s always great to hear classmates disgustedly respond to pell grants by saying how “no one ever gave me anything” as they go to school with their parents’ money, much of which is a result of middle-class tax breaks.

I think the ideal has always been individual responsibility and personal fortitude, but your comments here make it sound as if you’re blaming so-called handouts and welfare programs for much of the country’s problems.

From what I remember from PoliSci 160, social security is by far the biggest expenditure in the federal government, with the usually lamented “welfare” programs making up a minuscule portion.

It might have been more practical to preach individualism before the industrial revolution, but with this country barely even manufacturing anymore, many depend on government jobs and the services they provide.

And with our GDP, you’d think we could allocate resources more effectively. Government should be able to be large and efficient, I think, however idealistic and unlikely.

The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

You’re right, of course. People feel entitled to what they’ve always received, though they may protest it on principle. Just check out what happened to Sweden and its well-meaning socialism.

Considering that most Ron Paul supporters are students, I think it would be ironic to see just how much tuition would cost if it weren’t subsidized, or how they’d get through school without federal loan programs.

Students who remember when the California State University didn’t have tuition costs forget that sky-high state property taxes funded that. To my mind, though, it wasn’t that bad on principle because it wasn’t the federal government — at least California’s state government can tailor the tax money to the local and regional needs.

It would take a from-scratch reorganization to make a smaller federal government work, and that just isn’t feasible with the behemoth we have.

All it would take is for Americans to simultaneously appreciate the freedom they would have from the federal government and to willingly accept the burdens that come with that. That won’t happen.

But it would be ideal. It might even lead to an era that would harken back to the long-gone ideal of individual responsibility and personal fortitude, if such a national ethic ever existed.

Not to add anything very constructive, but in response to Baxter’s latest comment, I think it’s not that the constituents always think they’re entitled to something they want, but something they’ve received consistently in the past.

Certain things just can’t be downsized without a major uproar.

This seems to be one of the fundamental reasons that government never gets any smaller.

It’s pretty messed that presidential candidates spend millions to tell you promises they’d rather not keep in the first place, then try (sometimes) to keep those promises just to keep you from throwing a fit about not keeping promises.

Of course, it seems that those who support people like Ron Paul think they don’t benefit from any government spending, which they’d shortly find out isn’t the case.

The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

Telling the electorate that they are not entitled to something they want, or that the government doesn’t exist to solve their problems is political anathema.

The solution to change the culture will not come through politicians because they are, as you say, reflections of the culture.

What could possibly change the American culture, and reverse the damaging aspects — they aren’t all bad, after all — that emerged from The New Deal, The Great Society and the Me Generation?

What could reverse the negative parts of these legacies? Moreover, who?

Great discussion. Absolutely there should be a place in the public discourse for the examination not only of those types of ideas, but what the actual purpose of government should be. Unfortunately, the politicians are not the problem. They are simply a reflection of a citizenry that is apathetic about personal responsibility but demanding of things to which they feel they are entitled. Paul is useful to the extent that he is out there giving voice to the notion of a much smaller government and and how its current form contributes to many of our problems. To his credit, he has been able to get more people than one might have expected to support his ideas. (although I believe his numbers are largely a reflection of anti-war sentiment and the fact that it is easier to vote in support of an idea when you know there is no chance it is going to happen)
The problem is that Paul reflects the thinking that government is the source of the problem. Get rid of the department of education and our schools will be better. As long as the mass of people continue to think like children, refusing to make choices between what we want and need, demanding instant gratification for their wants and desires, we will always replace the current form of big government with another.
The only way we can significantly change the system is to change the culture. That means telling people that everytime something unfortunate happens, it is not necessarily the purpose of government to solve your problem. That is different than telling them government is the problem.
Great discussion!

The Collegian Staff Comment
Future Squirrel Stuffer

Agreed.

There’s an issue in this column I mostly sidestepped — the merit of small government as a campaign issue.

Is there a viable place in American politics for “the gold standard” or “get rid of the Department of Education?” I think we both know the answer to that one: There isn’t.

But should there be? I’d be interested to read what you have to say about that.

America is in serious need of having her vagina examined Ron Paul is the only man who can achieve that feat.

I only flame when I feel it’s necessary!

And I’ve read the Federlist. Well, parts of it (John Jay was lame!), and I agree. We’re lucky so many deep thinkers were involved in forming the government, or we’d have been in some much bigger trouble a long time ago.

But it is funny to read Madison talk of the “evil” of factions when he and Jefferson later went to great lengths to totally ruin the federalist party. Jefferson even tried to get someone to write a book defaming Adams, although I can’t remember right now what the charge. However, that same writer later exposed Jefferson’s affairs with Sally Hemmings, the slave.

Jefferson was even given the opportunity to work as a team with John Adams but refused the gesture at Madison’s request. However, those two believed the federalists were true traitors and contrary to everything the revolution stood for.

Of course, any Framer praise almost ignores the usual White Guilt aspects of Indians and African slaves. But we can at least celebrate the parts of America’s past worth celebrating.

One thing for sure is the framers, all of them, would be absolutely mortified by today’s state.

Future Squirrel Stuffer
The Collegian Staff Comment

I agree. It’s a shame, too.

Pardon me for harkening back to The Framers — they weren’t absolutely perfect and neither was their Constitution — but said Framers explicity built the government on the assumption that the worst sort of people would be attracted to its power. Read The Federalist Papers and you’ll see what I mean.

Division of powers. Checks and balances. Life terms to the Supreme Court. All prevent a clever, unscrupulous individual from seizing enough power to destroy the Republic.

Ron Paul, like few other candidates, isn’t one of those unscrupulous individuals. He’s a little crazy, but he’s predictable and principled.

He isn’t just jockeying for political power by pandering to the electorate. He actually believes this small government stuff.

Maybe that’s his craziest trait.

Oh, and on a personal note: I appreciate the honest commentary and back-and-forth without outright flaming.

I think what it comes down to is that most people, even politicians, don’t actually want a small government. They just want to use big government for whatever suits themselves or their voter base.

It’s nuts that someone as crazy as Ron Paul is even attractive at all. It seems with our resources we should be able to run an efficient program with plenty to spare.

But I’m not going to pretend to understand something as complicated as this budget, with the crazy debts (and accompanying interest) and everything else I’m glad I have no say in. I”m sure everyone wishes it was this simple.

I also am almost positive that regardless of who is president, government will continue to grow and become less efficient until something big (possibly very bad) happens.