Can Governments Represent Us?

The assumption of the right-wing in the US is that government can't work, that it does nothing positive, and that any expansion of government power is simply a "power-grab." They claim governments produce nothing. Yet, census workers, for example, determine who populates the country: information highly valued by corporations.

The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.

In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.

The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.

The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.

Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.

The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.

Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.

But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."

Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.