congressional_record: CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgS28
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgS28 | 1994-12-20 | 103 | 2 | WHY WE HATE GOVERNMENT | SENATE | SENATE | FRONTMATTER | S | S | [{"name": "Paul Simon", "role": "speaking"}] | 140 Cong. Rec. S | Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994) [Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)] [Senate] [Page S] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov] [Congressional Record: December 20, 1994] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] WHY WE HATE GOVERNMENT Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a longtime friend of mine, Charles Klotzer, publisher of the St. Louis Journalism Review, recently had some observations about the election of November 8, 1994, that I think should be of interest to people of every political persuasion. At one point, he hits on what I think is the nub of a problem that we have that goes beyond anyone's politics. He writes: We have lost compassion. Helping our community has been reduced to handing our ineffectual neighborhood breadbaskets. The community as a collective is eager to dismantle welfare and unemployment programs. We reject an egalitarian society which provides equal opportunities, substituting a class structure that equates value with income. We believe that school districts without much property to tax probably deserve no better. We resent others. The schism between various ethnic and religious groups is growing. We cultivate righteousness at the expense of community. These trends have been abetted if not promoted by the media. Marketing consultants are earning their keep by telling the media they can only survive if they offer what is popular. Catering to the lowest common denominator of public acceptance as most media do, abandons the media's crucial function as a wellspring of new and independent ideas. The public indoctrination of what government represents could never have gotten hold without the media. Mr. President, I ask the Charles Klotzer editorial/observation, which appears under the title, ``Why We Hate Government,'' be printed in the Record. The material follows: ``Why We Hate Government'' (By Charles L. Klotzer) ``What lies behind the turnover of power,'' asked Robert MacNeil when opening that evening's discussion on the MacNeil-Lehrer News-hour the day after the elections. The common consensus by pollsters, commentators, politicians on the media circuit is that voters revolted against ``big government'' and against too much control from Washington DC. They say the vote was largely propelled by fear of crime, by uncertainty about their future, by cynicism about programs and officials, elected or appointed, and by anger against a leadership symbolized by President Bill Clinton. Beyond any doubt, the public was out to repudiate government. This phenomenon, so the media tells us, was evident from the precinct level to the national arena. It was not that anyone in particular opposed the rebuilding by government of a bridge in disrepair, or the investigation by government of an airplane accident, or the investment by government of funds to find a cure for cancer. Nevertheless, everyone was bitter, be it in their reduced take-home pay, their apprehension--well founded or not--of taking walks at night, or their unmet expectations in their personal or professional lives. Somehow it was all linked to the ``failure'' of government. The institution of government, more so than the Democratic or Republican parties, is suspect. Governmental regulations are resented. Paperwork required in dealing with any governmental level is always excessive. Officials are probably corrupt, and if not corrupt, they are probably lazy. If we just could function without governmental interference in our daily life, without all the regulations. A poll by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press found a massive, public disaffection among the electorate. The electorate is ``angry, self-absorbed and politically unanchored,'' were the findings. Frustrations and deep skepticism with the political system is rooted ``in their struggle with the economic limitations they face.'' The one question which has not been asked is simply: why does the public think that the government is the cause of their perceived misery? If your wages are too low, wouldn't it be more logical to organize and pressure employers to increase benefits? If you cannot afford health insurance anymore, wouldn't it make more sense to demand that government step in until you find another job? If you are bothered by crime in your neighborhood, wouldn't it be appropriate to ask you local police to provide more protection, even if your taxes will go up as a result? Some problems, we know, cannot be solved by individuals. You need a collective, a government, representing the majority of its constituents to address those concerns beyond the reach of individuals. Rationally, we know we need government. Emotionally, we resent government. The question is: why? It appears that this public attitude has been cultivated, nurtured and shaped by all the interests which oppose governmental intervention and governmental supervision. Environmental laws have hurt some sections of our industry. Requirements for a safe work place have not been uniformly welcome. Reducing the production of weapon systems represents a redistribution of economic power. Supervision of America's processing facilities and required modifications will incur unwelcome expenditures. The list is endless. All of these interests--hurt in the short term, although beneficiaries, like all of us, in the long term--knew that an anti-government drive in their own name would be rejected by the American public. Attacking protective and regulatory legislation in their own name would be counterproductive. These interests had to convince the public at large that it is in their interest to suspect government. And were they successful. Their aim went beyond a particular piece of legislation; they struck out at government itself, the root cause of their discomfort. No, these concerted efforts were not due to some conspiracy hatched out in secret. No need for that. The self-interest, which usually means the bottom line, propelled the economic movers and shakers in our country to finance movements, politicians, and media campaigns to mold public opinions. Ultimately, we all felt that it was our idea in the first place. The net outcome is not only a change in political power, but also attitudinal changes which are much more serious. We have lost compassion. Helping our community has been reduced to handling our ineffectual neighborhood breadbaskets. The community as a collective is eager to dismantle welfare and unemployment programs. We reject an egalitarian society which provides equal opportunities, substituting a class structure that equates value with income. We believe that school districts without much property to tax probably deserve on better. We resent ``others.'' The schism between various ethnic and religious groups is growing. We cultivate righteousness at the expense of community. These trends have been abetted if not promoted by the media. Marketing consultants are earning their keep by telling the media they can only survive if they offer what is popular. Catering to the lowest common denominator of public acceptance as most media do, abandons the media's crucial function as a wellspring of new and independent areas. The public indoctrination of what ``government'' represents could not have gotten hold without the media. ____________________ |