Why the Right is Wrong
It is true the fewer parts something has, the easier it is to fix. Thomas Jefferson championed this concept at the birth of our nation in his fanciful drafting of the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution of the United States. This visionary doctrine in many ways represented the original intent of many of the colonies that banded together and united as one force to repel the tyrannical British. Most colonies wanted to transition from colony to statehood. State, by definition is a sovereign nation. For instance many constituents of the continental congresses would not recognize Georgia as the same “country” as perhaps Pennsylvania or Maryland. Thomas Jefferson would refer to his beloved Virginia as the country he was from. The idea of politically uniting these separate entities at first for defense and later for commerce was initially a very radical sentiment and was constantly met with resistance. In the end the dreams of Jefferson and his original United States proved unrealistic and difficult to manage. Many of the new states would never have been able to flourish if it wasn’t for outside assistance. Crippling debt, violations of international treaties, and few rebellions (or if you lose they’re called civil wars), proved too much for a government that seemed as if all parts did not feel responsible for the other 12 parts. For over 12 years the Articles of Confederation proved to be a terribly ineffective method of government. If United States were going to survive, pay its debts, and defend against imperialistic European campaigns, it needed to truly be “united” and regulated by an agreed upon central authority. For this reason, on March 4th 1789 the founders replaced the Articles of Confederation with U.S. Constitution. The chief goal of this was to establish a much stronger and badly needed national government. The conservative reverie of an America under a “States Rights” doctrine has already been applied, failed and been rejected by the very men who crafted this nation from ideas and debate.
Yes, it is true that the fewer parts something has, the easier it is to fix. The conservative usage of this analogy is to apply it wholly to government. The conservative strategy is to breakdown our current system and replace it with as few parts as can be used. A novel notion, but history has shown with matters of power and authority so follows abuse and corruption.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
– Lord Acton
Whether in the tight-circle monarchies of Europe, the plantation owners of the antebellum South, the barons of the Industrial Age, or the Wall Street tycoons of modern times; all prove what inevitably happens in all cases where a privileged few control the many.
Never in all of human history, has such a system worked for the benefit of the majority it served. So it should stand to reason that such a system as it applies to government in which the fewest possible control the matters of the most will result, as it always has, in abusive and corrupt leadership that pushes and promotes its own interest before that of the governed. The word democracy comes from the Greek words demos (which means “people”) and kratos (which means “power”). The more power the people have, the more democratic the nation. A democracy only works if it is justly a nation of the people, by the people, for the people.
