A CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE

The Federalist Papers is a collection of essays written for the purpose of “selling” the new proposed constitution of 1787. They were initially written anonymously but we do know who wrote them: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. In the one entitled, Number 51, Madison writes of the challenge of setting up a new government: “[T]he great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” We Americans, according to Samuel P. Huntington,¹ seem to under-appreciate the first of these challenges and over- emphasize the second. We tend to forget that we inherited from mostly the British a sense for established governance, yet we also inherited from them the need to react to over-governance. And so it has become part of our folklore to romanticize our rebellious spirit, our sense of independence from any foreign force and from our own government. Unfortunately, this bias gets easily translated as an anti-government language we bandy about. It also lends to the rhetoric of opposition aimed at those governmental programs with which we disagree. Not only do we not want the programs, but fighting them gets elevated to an inordinate and unwarranted crusade against big government.

A prime example today is how we see universal health care. Is providing health care a legitimate government responsibility? Here is an argument for it: disease is no more a danger to our citizenry than a foreign enemy. We set up governments for mutual protection. The difference is that no private entity can afford individual protection against a foreign national force. It takes a national government to do that. But in the case of health, some citizens can afford private medical care and some can't. Our ability to pay should not stand in the way of any of us getting a reasonable level of care relative to the national economy's ability to pay for such care. Well, I don't expect this argument to change anyone's view, but I provide it to demonstrate a point of view that does not threaten our liberty, at least not any more so than a government providing for national defense.

As a matter of fact, it points to a need for governance. We should be about forming a more perfect union, a goal our constitution identifies. How can one argue a more perfect union is achieved when tens of millions of citizens cannot receive viable health care? Such a position is not reasonable. And an approach to governance that sets out to provide health care for all citizens cannot be seen as a failure of our government “to control itself.”

1Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND THEIR USES

In a recent article, The Bankruptcy of Liberalism and Conservatism,¹ the eminent sociologist, Amitai Etzioni, reports on the extended use of Social Security numbers (SSNs) in identifying citizens and legal residents. The growth of this use has taken place despite the concerns by many over privacy and security issues. Those issues have been expressed ever since Social Security began back in the thirties as part of the New Deal legislation under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt. Etzioni cites this case study to make a larger point about the assumptions made in public discourses between liberals and conservatives – a point I will most likely visit in the future. But my concern here is more in line with one that I have made in the past. That is, one of the assumptions made in defense of unrestricted gun sales seems to miss the point and the reality associated with governmental power as it is constituted today.

Etizioni provides a summary account of how not only the public sector – government – but the private sector – businesses and private organizations – have come to, in ever increasing levels, count on the use of SSNs. As a former university prof, I was often disconcerted by the use of SSNs in identifying students. It seems that my own dealings with banks, insurance companies, doctors' offices, and the like all call for me offering up my SSN. All my dealings with the federal government revolve around me being identified by this number. This is not only the Social Security office, but Medicare or services such as getting a passport. Etzioni makes the point that since information has been digitized, the use of SSNs has skyrocketed. In all of this, despite the absence of a federal identification card – which most countries demand of their citizens – the federal government's ability to keep track of us has become extremely efficient. And with the extended use by the private sector, a process that makes collating information about us relatively simple and far reaching, the amount of information about us which is easily retrievable is downright scary.

I have made the point before: if we extend an unlimited right to “bear arms” in order to protect us from an oppressive government, that “ship has sailed.” The extended use of SSNs by government and private entities – information easily obtainable through subpoena – has made any insurrection by an oppressed people that more improbable in even getting off the ground, much less in meeting success. That's not to mention what I have mentioned before: the government's regulation of motor vehicles, communication facilities, other transportation facilities, and the weaponry at its disposal makes armed rebellion a romantic, but unrealistic possibility. So if the concern is to keep the government in check – a responsible concern – I think we as citizens should be more concerned with other means than counting on launching an armed insurrection. Such efforts such as active participation in our governmental processes, active economic involvement, active community involvement, being educated about the issues before us that would be facilitated by an active press and school instruction that is informed and proficient would all be more reasonable ways of putting pressure on governmental officials to do right. And we should be insistent that citizens be involved in overseeing what government does at all levels from the local to the national and international. Part of that effort is a viable civics education program.

1Etzioni, A. (2013). The bankruptcy of liberalism and conservatism. Political Science Quarterly, 128 (1), pp. 39-65.