Washington Gone Rogue - Does Our Government Still Represent "We The People?"
As we near another Presidential Election, it’s easy to focus on the doddering octogenarian who occupies the White House. His falls and foibles are on display daily, so naturally, many of us will associate his failings with the troubles we’re experiencing. Get a new President, this thinking goes, and many of our problems will disappear.
While that may be true to an extent, the fundamental issues we face today have their roots as far back as the 1960s. Then, as today, the real problem was a government that did not represent the people — the social contract upon which this nation was founded was broken. A nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, said our 16th President.
Abraham Lincoln succinctly described how the American Government was supposed to work. And for the next century, that was the expectation of “we, the people.” In the words of philosopher John Locke, a contract was established between our government and its citizens. It was a “social contract.” As citizens, we would pay our taxes and obey the government’s rules, while the government would represent our fundamental hopes and objectives.
The government was NOT our ruler but our representative. The concept presupposed that the government would know and understand its citizens. Elections would help establish that representation by placing citizens’ chosen candidate as our President, Senator, or Congressperson.
However, by the 1960s, the country had gone off its rails. Locke’s Social Contract was no longer in effect, as a series of US Presidents, principally Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, took actions that were counter to the goals and desires of a large segment of the population.
The occasion was the Vietnam War, a war halfway around the world that, at its peak, enlisted half a million soldiers and would ultimately see 58,000 young Americans die. An unelected war, with a universal draft, meant that many young people were sent to fight in a conflict they did not vote for. The country was no longer a “representative democracy,” if indeed it ever had been.
Throughout history, the inevitable result of a government's actions contrary to the people’s desires has been rebellion. By their nature, rebellions are brutish and nasty events in which no party ultimately wins. This is not to justify the rebels' actions or methods. Rather, it is an exploration of the origins and causes of the rebellion. Fundamentally, when a government, any government, goes contrary to its people, the people rebel.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with [their government]…
The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
These are the forces that Joe Biden has unleashed. Americans are a peaceful people, traditionally opposing foreign wars. Unfortunately, Vietnam and a parade of conflicts in this century have gone contrary to our fundamental nature. Presidents have entangled (to use George Washington’s word) the country in relatively small “brush-fire” actions far away from our homeland. As a people, we’ve overlooked these skirmishes. Some have even justified them by saying that “war is good for business.” (Thank you, Lindsey Graham!) But as reprehensible as that sentiment is, most Americans seek peace instead.
The Biden Administration, on the other hand, is the most pro-war leadership this country likely has ever seen. Before the President assumed office, the nation was in relative peace. No significant conflicts had broken out. Today, the country faces the possibility of not just one but three conflicts: Ukraine, Gaza, and possibly Taiwan.
Something is wrong when a country is embroiled in this number of conflicts. It’s not always the “other guy” who is at fault. The possibility exists that we, too, may be guilty. But even asking the question of America’s provocation in these conflicts invites the ire of this Administration and, regrettably, many of our fellow citizens.
How is it that America is currently embroiled in wars around the globe? This question requires a self-examination that many would rather not do. Did the world change so much on January 20, 2021, when Joe Biden took office that now we must fight a two-front and possibly three-front war? It’s highly unlikely.
The more probable case is that this is an Administration that would instead “shoot first” and ask questions later. This government has a hair trigger and sees war as the preferred resolution to global disputes. No doubt Joe Biden considers the United States the “big guy” on the block. As he said on 60 Minutes, “We’re the United States of America, for G-d’s sake.” All we have to do is rattle our swords, and other nations will bend to our will.
But it hasn’t worked out that way. The opposition, principally Russia, and Hamas, and possibly China, are not backing away. They’ve stepped up to the challenge. The result has been that America is being drained, armaments depleted in Ukraine and Gaza, and a fortune spent supporting the governments of those two countries.
- *
“The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews — just understand, don’t kid yourself, no matter what y’all say, that’s called World War III,” Biden told a gathering of House Democrats in Philadelphia.
Joe Biden, March 11, 2022 Philadelphia
Recently, President Biden authorized those same F16s to be sent to Ukraine. Does it follow that this is WWIII?
**
Americans are increasingly restless. The current situation is not what we want. Even the most “hawkish” of our fellows are beginning to see that our path is a dead-end. Joe Biden’s presidency does not represent the American people. And that’s the fundamental issue.
The Biden Administration has broken its Social Contract—its sacred obligation to represent “we the people”—and that’s what’s on this year’s ballot.