[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.

                          ____________________