Relying on government is a risky thing
When I read columnist Leonard Pitt’s Sept. 9 article, I was only reassured about what progressivism essentially stands for, and the overall life-view of the average progressive.
In that piece, Mr. Pitt cites the Lincoln prediction of, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” to analogize what he sees as the next great political showdown coming over same-sex marriage. This is presuming the federal government has any business in most domestic issues, period.
And there lies the mindset that seemingly composes the basic character of progressivism: the belief that the very fabric of society will begin to unravel, should Washington act any less the material and emotional parent than now; an entity that makes life safe, fair and generally worry-free. No wonder that to limit it is the epitome of cruelty. Crises like the Civil War and Depression only made this attitude easier to have.
So it really doesn’t surprise me that Mr. Pitt sees the next crossroads of our national conscience being same-sex marriage, a matter of utmost unfairness and inequality to be fixed by something whose sole reason for being is to make our lives perfect. But government is simply the prime means for us to act on our natural inclination to subjugate and control others. That’s why it is so dangerous. So in a very real sense, we gamble with our freedom by allowing it to be our life’s guardian.
Which is why our next big crisis of conscience is actually going to be if we’ll recognize that freedom absolutely necessitates limited government, and then have the will to limit it. Or let Washington become so encompassing that we will be smothered both physically and psychologically. History shows that freedom suffers when a government is inordinately active.