|
Germany, Spain, France all have something like a national ID.
The fundamental question in this arena as in all other involving giving the government tangible power over people's lives, in this case by informing it about their personal business, is: what is the attitude on which government behavior is based ? Is government governed by the principle that it is of, by, and for the people ? That it in fact is nothing but members of "the People", who the rest of the People chose to represent them, and in fact to SERVE them (hence the forgotten and sullied phrase "public servant", which bears the footprints of innumerable hogs who ran over it rushing to serve themselves instead of their fellow citizens). The old French notion of "Fraternite'" (with Liberte' and particularly Egalite' following closely behind) is operative here - have I been honored by my brothers and sisters, my fellow members of "our People" to represent them, to do my part in making the machine, the mechanism which is government structure, work in our common interest ? Or have I forgotten Egalite', and do not have egalitarian feelings towards my fellows, but instead prefer to speak the degenerate language of power, authority and coercion ?
The underpinnings of America were the notion that government exists at the pleasure of the governed, that it in fact is just an expression of their will, that they have made their choice about how their society shall operate manifest in it. The first step in the progression that Locke saw and the Founders expressed in the Declaration, where the People come to the conclusion that government no longer acts in their interest, is when those who have been given the privilege to serve their peers take the power their office gives them and use it for ends which are unrelated to the public interest. The people lose their trust in the individuals, and then in the institution. As stated, every Republican administration in the last 100 years with the exception of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Ford have been archetypal examples of institutionalized corruption amongst the inhabitants of civic structures. While trumpeting their teary, involuntary love for America and all she represents, they have defecated on the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, and wiped their obese asses with taxpayer dollars. This, in short breaks from their slopping at the public and private trough with their fellows, the holders of capital.
In this environment, it is not surprising that the American people have become disaffected from their nation's formal structure, and from those who inhabit it. Although the conclusion that the filth of the individuals somehow equates to the inadequacy of the structure is deeply flawed. Corruption can destroy any system no matter how valuable, well-conceived, and just, and there is no system that can more than partially replace ethical human intent or guard against immorality.
In the arena of civic rights, we are at a dangerous impasse where those who have inhabited government office in the past (and present) have forgotten their duty to the people, and their oath to the Constitution, and have abused the power given them by the people to acquire illegitimate power over the people. The history of federal government behavior in the area of domestic intelligence is disgraceful, we can recall the Palmer Raids and the red scare, HUAC, McCarthy, drag queen J.Edgar, COINTELPRO, dirty tricks, CISPES to name a few. I.e., the distrust of the intent of those inhabiting high office, as well as their authority- and validity-hungry lackeys, is well-founded.
Those in US government have a choice: do they make it unequivocally clear that the foundations of the United States, the principle of an egalitarian society led by a government constituted by representatives of the people, are not in question, and that they gratefully accept and take responsibility for the role of servants of the people, or do they engage in the social conflict which is the essence of a public and government which see each other as adversaries, and which is the road to degeneracy and dictatorship, and privilege for the few and indenture for the masses ? Flatulent emissions of sentimentality about the grand old flag and what Merka means to me (followed by the Cheney/Powell style of commentary that "you have to watch what you say, there's a war on you know") don't cut it. A wise man named Lincoln captured the essence of the issue with his closing to the Gettysburg address: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." And also that "you can't fool all the people all the time." The choice is theirs. And ours.
|