A Battle Royal

If you think the recent debate/fight/war in Washington illustrates a broken government, I’d like to introduce you to a piece of our history that might change your mind.

The time is 1781 and the war for independence against Great Britain has just ended. Now the new nation (picture a teenager who has just graduated and has decided to leave home) is on its own, and is faced with the onerous task of deciding what it wants to be.

A monarchy? A democracy? Something in-between?

For the next seven and a half years leaders of the old colonies/new states debated/fought/warred over what that new government would look like. Like the more recent deficit battle in Washington, the result then was not really much of a compromise because one party, the Federalists, controlled the show from the beginning.

You see, the people making the decisions to change the Articles of Confederation were mostly members of the elite, rich landowners, who comprised the Federalist Party. Finally, in 1789, the Constitution was agreed upon, but only with the stipulation that additions would be coming in short order.

After two more years of debate/fighting/warring, the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was added.

The two major players then were Alexander Hamilton (who wanted a strong federal government) and Thomas Jefferson (who didn’t).

Both understood how much was a stake. A poorly written document could prove ruinous to the new country, so a few years of heated debate and serious in-fighting were worth the time, the trouble, the conflicts.

Three hundred years later we find no teenager but a mature country. And once again, it may be at the precipice.

The country’s leaders immediately following the Revolution knew that the fate of the country hinged on what they did or the United States would tumble off the cliff of history; hopefully, the leaders today realize they may be in the same situation.

For the past 300 years the country has grown; problem is, so has the government. Bigger and bigger, richer and richer, and, perhaps, stupider and stupider (Forgive the grammar but I was going for effect.)

Now is the time (thanks either to the Tea Party’s staunch approach or because its approach is unworkable) for our leaders to debate/fight/war over what this country is about and what direction it wants to proceed, hopefully, for the next 300 years.

So I say this: Maybe our present government is not as dysfunctional as we think. Just as our leaders battled for a representative government 300 years ago, so too should our leaders do the same today. That’s what a democracy is all about. Debate. Freedom of expression. Disagreement. That is at the heart of a libertarian society and there can be no deadlines of finding the correct path once the debate ends.

We should fight hard when the stakes are great. The issues facing us now are large and important. Maybe disagreement and debate is a good thing right now. At least to some degree the Tea Partiers have forced the issue because enough people believe we really are at the precipice.

I don’t pretend to know for sure what side is right. I know we have incredibly serious money problems. Social Security and Medicare are in trouble. Unemployment is much too high. The middle class has lost ground during the past 30 years, and if I remember correctly, we have had both parties in control during that 30 years.

I do know one thing, however. We need true leadership and maybe the only way to get there is through bitter disagreement. Let’s bump heads.

It worked 300 years ago. Maybe it’ll work again.