In point of fact, it is the third largest country in the world. When compared with the two countries larger than it, Russia and Canada, America has over twice the amount of people as the former, and nearly ten times the amount of the latter, packed into a smaller area.
That's not to say there is a problem with overpopulation in America. It could be argued, of course, but it's not near the issue as it is in, say, China with its 1.3 billion, or India with its 1.1 billion. The problem is with governing a body of land so large, with the number of people so dense.
If you have a smaller country, even if you have a problem with overpopulation, governing that body is relatively easier, as there is literally less ground to cover for your laws to take hold and to be enforced. India is less than half the size of the United States, which presents a different challenge for that country, but the issue of making sure its policies are enforced is less of one than in America. China, on the other hand, has had the benefit of nearly 4000 years of civilization, compared to less than 400 years of civilization in the United States; they have learned how to oversee their land, a territory comparable in size to America.
It's some of that relative newness that makes policing American governmental policy throughout the country even more difficult. Our civilization never dealt with dynastic reigns or tyrannical empires and, in a way, its colored our judgment of government at large. Because our freedoms, as a society in general, have never been taken away we don't have the perspective to understand the difference between a government that is taking a large role in efforts to control the population and a government that is taking a large role in efforts to assist the population. Really, it's the difference between the Grammys and the Oscars. One is trying to force something down the population's throat, and the other is trying to reward and uplift that which might not always get a fair say.
For those who are unaware of the term, Manifest Destiny was a phrase in the American lexicon that was used to describe the idea that America as a country was destined to stretch from the Atlantic all the way across the vast swath of land, to the Pacific. It took a revolution in Texas, a purchase from the French, and a war with Mexico to get there, which seems difficult enough, but within a hundred years the country had to deal with threatened division during the Civil War. When looking at the short history of this country it's amazing that it even still exists as a single entity.
Sometimes it's amazing to think that we mostly even speak the same language. And while there are several regional dialects that cover the United States, from the Midwest's Fargo accent, to the Northeast's Boston sound, to Ebonics, to the South's drawl, we are all still able to understand each other. It's an amazing feat in and of itself.
Look at it this way. The continent of Europe is presided over by the European Union. In a region that is roughly the same size as the United States, they speak around 25 different languages officially. To put that in perspective, that means that translates into every other state in America having a completely different language. In my life I've moved from Wisconsin to Minnesota and then to Illinois, if the earlier analogy were to be continued, then odds would be that at some point in those moves I'd have had to learn at least one different language. Minnesotan, or maybe Illinese.
It takes an extraordinary amount of effort to keep a national policy over such a space. We divide governments up at the state and then local levels for precisely this reason, but at the same time, trying to enact policy for a span so wide just speaks of disaster on a smaller level. And the idea of what to do about that is pretty much the difference between the Republican and Democratic party.
For Republicans the idea is that, because it is difficult to enact this policy over such a large area in a meaningful way, then the responsibility for providing for citizens should be left up to the states.
For Democrats, of which I count myself a member in general, the argument is that because it is difficult, it is even more important for the federal government to make policies that determine the baseline.
To me the federal government is useful for establishing this sort of "lowest point allowable." There's been a lot of talk about the government taking over the health care system which, if that were the case, I would be against. But the idea that I see attempting to take place is a system that says, "This is the minimum amount of care that everyone deserves, regardless of status or income." Just like how the public school system was instituted as a way of saying, "This is the minimum amount of education that everyone deserves, regardless of status or income."
People who have freedoms have a natural fear of having their freedoms taken away. It's the reason why we always sorta cringe when we pass a cop, even if we haven't done anything. That's why it's easy to understand the reluctance to let government, particularly federal government, have a larger role in our lives. We feel as though letting government dictate these minimums could lead to them dictating, well, everything.
A friend of mine put forth an interesting idea once, when we were discussing the political stratum. Liberals and Conservatives are often referred to as "the left" and "the right" respectively and, during one of our first conversations, I was attempting to show where I would fall on this political "line." His challenge was that the idealogical perspective isn't a line at all, but a circle. At the top of the circle is an absolute moderate. At 3 o'clock on the circle would be the far right, let's say Rush Limbaugh. At 9 o'clock would be the far left, let's say Keith Olbermann. At the bottom of the circle is, well, Hitler.
Truthfully it's an accurate way of looking at things. If we let the government dictate too much to is it becomes, appropriately, a dictatorship. If we remove all the power from the government and place it in the hands of individuals it will inevitably end up in the hands of a single individual and become, yes, a dictatorship.
The fact of the matter is, though, that we haven't been close to devolving into such an arrangement, nor do we have the historical perspective to determine where the line is to be drawn. It would be nice to have a clear line that we could see being crossed. Until then we have to simply be aware of the balance. While an overabundance of government in a country the size of Italy can turn into a dictatorship rather quickly, it is more of a necessity in a country the sheer size of the United States, where the length of the reach has to cover one ocean shore to another.
Manifest Destiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment