Limited government

                In order to place the Constitution into its proper context, it is necessary to examine the values behind the document. In order of significance; these values consist of limited government, constitutional sovereignty, separated institutions sharing power and optimism mixed with realism. Let us consider each in turn.

                Like all such documents, the American Constitution is a product of its time and the worldview of its authors. The founding fathers sought to avoid the mistakes of the old world (such as the abuse of power by an unelected leader). Above all, they sought to prevent the emergence of another King George. As such, the whole emphasis of the Constitution seeks to prevent the concentration of power into the hands of the few; either as a ruler who sought to act like a King or an elite that might act like a cabal seeking to undermine the rights of the individual. As such, the Constitution ensures that a system of checks and balances is in place in order to protect us from the problems that plagued the old world.

                The stress upon limited government exists throughout the whole of the Constitution. Term limits on the President (as derived from the twenty-second amendment), an intricate system of checks and balances, a separation of powers between the three branches of government, an independent judiciary and protection for the individual against the abuse of power by the state are all the hallmarks of limited government. The cumulative impact of this emphasis upon limited government is a deep-seated suspicion within the American psyche of government itself, particularly over how a despotic regime could threaten the cherished rights and liberties of the American people. This fear manifests itself on both left and right; although in the contemporary era it is more pronounced on the right-libertarian side of the political spectrum.

To some extent, this fear of government is entirely sensible and rational. Despite the existence of a Bill of Rights and other notable constitutional amendments; successive administrations have curtailed civil liberties in several areas. Indeed, there is a striking continuity between the Obama and Bush administrations in their approach to civil liberties. The war against terror has been used to justify the use of waterboarding against terrorist suspects, a draconian approach to Wikileaks, the extensive surveillance against American citizens, denial of due process relating to enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay and the prolonged use of drone strikes. There is an almost seamless continuity between the privileged son of a former President and the charismatic Nobel Prize winner, despite the caricatures painted by partisan figures against their natural opponent. No wonder the average American is wary of what the government can do to our freedoms!

However, this fear of government can take on an irrational form. When left unchecked by reason, fear of government can become borderline hysterical. For instance, there are advertisements within select magazines for survival resources in the event of the government imposing a form of tyrannical rule over the people. On balance, it seems highly improbable that the federal government would violate the fourth amendment by seizing private property from American citizens. Never forget that America is a country where the ‘g-word’ is so toxic that the government’s response to an emergency situation such as Hurricane Katrina has to be described as the “federal family.” It also skews the debate over gun control. Sensible measures to prevent the proliferation of guns in American society are regularly discredited when opponents of such moves can stoke up fears of the government imposing tyranny upon the populace. The United States is also a tax-phobic country completely out of line with other comparable democracies. America was born out of a revolution against taxation, and the one sure-fire way to rouse a rabble is to persuade them that the government is imposing measures that threaten our constitutional rights.

There is much to admire about American society, but a true patriot should acknowledge there is also much to question in terms of the degree to which such arguments are taken to their extreme. All too often, political debate within America suffers from argumentum ad absurdum. Taking sensible measures by the government is not tyranny, nor is it socialist or comparable to Nazism (a claim made by Rush Limbaugh and Paul Broun against Obamacare). Indeed, by international standards President Obama belongs on the center-right of the political spectrum. I can only ask the reader to engage in reason so that the politics of the head triumph over the politics of the heart. The former creates clarity, whereas the latter clouds our judgment.