“Government”, like “money”, is a very commonly-used term which seemingly would not need definition. However, this obscures the fact that liberals and conservatives discuss the proper role of government in very different ways. These disputes about the role of government reflect differences in priorities, but also reflect different understandings of governmental capabilities and risks. In this essay, I’ll try to examine those differences and put them in the context of how governments have been framed historically. I will lay the groundwork to recognize some common contradictions in the way partisans view government, as well as remark on alternative structures that can accomplish some of the same ends often ascribed to government.
Statue of General Rochambeau in Lafayette Park, Washington DC
First, a dictionary definition: “the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration.” Although this definition is functional for someone learning English, it avoids any hint of controversy by ignoring issues about the purpose of government, and by referencing other organizations with debatable boundaries: politics, communities, societies, states, and administration.
The US Declaration of Independence describes government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” As befits a revolutionary document, the Declaration of Independence quickly builds toward a list of requirements and grievances. It thus describes governmental purposes more directly: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, “secure these rights”, “just powers”, “consent of the governed”, “Safety and Happiness.” It perhaps also reflects Thomas Jefferson’s view that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” (In the original context, this quote appears less aggressive and reflects a view that anarchy is bad, that violent revolution should be rare - but may be a useful threat to obtain necessary reforms, and that at least in some cases, those fomenting rebellion are doing so out of ignorance.) Also of note about the Declaration of Independence is that it was written by a slave owner, which status doubtless colors Jefferson’s delineation of who counts as “People” with “unalienable Rights” who might “consent” to the government.
U.S. White House, Winter 2020
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Whereas the Declaration focused on the reasons to remove a failing government, the Constitution therefore defines the active purpose of government prior to committing to a specific governmental structure. These references to the “general Welfare” have been the focus of several pragmatic and idealistic reforms over the years.
Britain’s Magna Carta was written to resolve disputes between the king and his barons, and to avoid a brewing civil war. It provided a civil service and individual rights separate from those of the king, and enforced separately from his whim and from the the threat of rebellion. It thus defined an overall governmental structure.
Protest outside the US Supreme Court
Representative democracy is dominant these days, at least in the US and most of its allies, but there are several different styles of it, including parliamentary and presidential systems. Plato advocated a “philosopher king” with high ideals and few constraints. Others have advocated for military rule, for direct democracy, for theocracy, for hereditary, totalitarian or oligarchic systems, or for no government at all. These systems can overlap, or a government originally conceived under one approach can gradually change into another form.
I might get into comparisons of the major systems later, but all of them find different ways of addressing similar core issues:
Who makes decisions for the group?
How are conflicts resolved within the group as a whole?
What happens when individual decision makers become unfit or die?
Conservatives are more likely to want to restrict government to military matters and reinforcing existing social norms. Liberals are more likely to want to shake up those existing power structures, distributing power and wealth to those who have historically lacked it. As a pragmatic affair, government is a way of reconciling the interests of multiple interest groups.
Washington Monument seen through trees near the White House.
Political science, which is often considered a study of governing systems, is also seen by its practitioners as the study of power. This suggests to me two potential ways to define government:
Government is the body which creates and enforces society’s laws.
Government is the collection of entities which collectively dominate the shaping and exercise of power within a society.
These two definitions are not pragmatically different: Any attempts to weaken the formalized authority of a central government devolves that power to other entities. If the formal government loses the ability to enforce laws within a particular regime, those de jure laws may be replaced with socially-enforced taboos, mores, memoranda of understanding between corporations, vigilantes, conditions of employment, or analogous de facto constraints. Banning government from writing laws that reference race, for example, doesn’t mean that race will not be used in decision-making and power distribution, but it does mean that race relations will be entrusted to individuals, corporations, and private organizations who are not legally answerable for those decisions.
This post is part of a series on governing the economy. The previous post was “What is Money?” and the following one is “What are the major benefits of laissez-faire capitalism?”