Abraham Lincoln was guided by an over-arching belief in the rightness of our nation’s founding concepts:
…we here highly resolve … that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Barack Obama also believes in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people–he just thinks that those are different groups of people. That is exactly the difference between conservatives and progressives.
Progressives believe that the most intelligent and most moral of society must be in charge, and they believe that systems of credentials established within progressive enclaves can reliably indicate those qualities. They believe that this ruling class must have the power to compel the human development of those more backward or more simple than themselves, which is necessarily the majority, if they are the select few.
The great task and the cause spoken of by Lincoln at Gettysburg is that government (not “a government”, but “government”) of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. This sets up three points for analysis, which is what each of those prepositions (of, by, and for) really means.
We will take “government of the people” to identify those who are governed; “government by the people” to identify those who govern, and “government for the people” to identify those who benefit.
Types of Government by whom exactly is governed (“of”), who governs (“by”), and who benefits (“for”), with some terms or descriptions that might apply.
In all cases, for consistency, the first party is the “of” group, or those who are governed:
Type I: by themselves, for their own benefit
– The intent of Lincoln’s phrase, a self-governing people, free to work for its own benefitType II: by themselves, for a second party’s benefit
– An unstable charity or altruistic arrangement. To paraphrase Lincoln, this will cease to be self-governing, or will cease to benefit others. Supposed role of Vichy-style arrangements. Reverse colonization.Type III: by a second party, for the first party’s benefit
– Janissary; government-as-a-service; benevolent overlords. White man’s burden.Type IV: by a second party, for that second party’s benefit
– Oppression, exploitation by an overclass. Arguably colonization.Type V: by second party, for a third party’s benefit
– Oppression-as-a-service. Actual role of Vichy.
– This also applies if the population is split into “makers and takers”, where a minority productive class is dominated by an elite catering to a non-productive majority. From the productive point of view, there are three parties. Overlaps types II and IV.
Obviously, the “benefit” piece is the most slippery. You could say that the party governing always benefits, so that benefits accruing to other parties must be significant, and are in addition to the obvious benefit to the governing party.
Progressives do not believe that a legitimate government requires the consent of the governed. Progressives require an enlightened subset to govern the majority, which aligns closely with the oxymoronic “dictatorship of the proletariat” — obviously a dictatorship of all, by all, for all is no dictatorship at all, and the actual ruling clique will of course be much smaller. The Marxist radicals of the progressive Obama administration see themselves as having finally achieved a type III government in which “a people is governed for its own benefit by other people”. They are the smart and moral “other”, and the more alien they see themselves to us, the better.
[pullquote]Radical change is synonymous with “fundamental transformation”[/pullquote]This is what people mean when they talk about the radical left. “Radical” is not a term devoid of meaning, equally applicable to any number of things unpalatable to you. The word radical comes from the word radix, which means root. A radical change is one which does not build upon existing things, but which replaces them from the roots. Radical change implies a towering contempt for the thing so changed. It is synonymous with “fundamental transformation”, which is a phrase that President Obama has used more than once, and this is no accident.
A type I government requires a market and demands capitalism as the only reliable method to steer the thing and stay true to all the groups being the same. Price signals and the actions of regularly elected representatives are the media where free people send messages. Even the most benevolent dictator cannot produce the freedom and opportunity to be found lying around in the most meager of free states. A Type III society relies upon the supposedly smart and moral central control to identify, analyze, and solve any problems the society might have, from wage and price issues on up to life and death decisions, whether war, health care, or nutrition.
This is exactly what these people have in mind when they say things like “But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it,” and an incredible assortment of similarly chilling statements. Those of us who do not accept being governed by a separate group will draw no distinction between type III and type IV, seeing any government by a foreign body as necessarily oppressive.
We insist upon a type I government, where the people who are governed are also those who govern.
Originally published on Nov 22, 2011. Last modified Jan 12, 2023.
