Where I Stand -- Brian Greenspun: How big of a Big Brother?

THE ROLE of the federal government ought to be ...

A generation or two ago, the question just asked would have given most citizens little pause in considering what their answer should be. Remember, there is no wrong answer because, once we get past the few enumerated constitutional requirements, the expansiveness of our central institutions is a question only of policy and degree.

Certainly, after the stock market crashed and the worldwide Depression threw America out of work and only steps from the poorhouse, there were few Americans who didn't applaud Franklin Roosevelt's decision to put the federal government, its programs and its people between America and any future harm's way. While there was discussion about the proper role of the federal government, no one argued too strenuously that there wasn't a place for Big Brother in helping American families maintain some financial dignity as they fell upon hard times.

And of course, following World War II this country's devotion to social programs like the GI Bill and other commitments to the education of a new generation brought few signs of displeasure and millions of accolades from Americans, rich and poor, who took advantage of Uncle Sam's decision to sponsor education as a top national priority.

And I suspect, other than a few holdovers from the times of racial segregation and economic subjugation of most working people, the federal government's entry into the social marketplace in the 1960s and '70s was welcomed as a needed step in the maturation of this country and its political goal of providing equal opportunity for all Americans. That it didn't turn out as planned is more an indictment of those responsible for executing a good idea than it is a branding of the concepts employed as wrong-headed.

In short, there have been times in the life of these United States when our federal government has been called upon to do that which either the states or the individuals in society have refused to do and that which, on balance and under constitutional scrutiny, is the right and proper thing. All to the incessant howls of those for whom life is good and for whom change represents only an upsetting of a pretty good and lucrative apple cart.

So today, as we approach the coming millennium and a brand new century of opportunity for this most incredible experiment in representative democracy, the question of the role of the federal government becomes even more important -- not so much in the asking but in the kind of answers that will be forthcoming.

The political and policy debate that has been fomenting its way throughout our country for the past two decades has centered on whether we Americans want the government in Washington to play any meaningful part in our daily lives. Whether we will be content to allow Washington to print money and wage war -- and little else -- or whether we expect our national leaders to promote the general welfare -- and all that word may imply -- is a question that deserves answering. Unfortunately, our country has been sidetracked on some lustful journey into the private life of our president to the point that we have been distracted from what should be a meaningful discussion because, how we answer the question may determine for many decades the kind and quality of country we will have.

I was reminded of this issue the other night during President Clinton's State of the Union address. Everyone heard the president tell us that billions of dollars of federal tax monies should be provided to school districts across this country but, unlike past practices, only to those districts which are accountable to the public. He outlined three areas -- the turning around of failing schools, an increase in teacher quality and the ending of what has been known as "social promotions" -- in which that accountability must be given.

Since education is and always has been a top priority for Americans, it makes sense that we set a national agenda to make sure we fix that which we all know is wrong with our educational system. Just like our predecessors did after the stock market crash, after World War II and when it was necessary to end segregation, a national effort, instigated and inspired from Washington, seems like the way to go.

There is, however, another view. The president's political opponents say there is a better way. Education should and must be fixed only at the local level, they say. It is hard to argue the point except to say that they are right but it just ain't happening.

We all know life is better when we fix things at home. But when things aren't fixed and need to be, then it may be time for a bigger brother to step in.

What is curious to me is why some Republican presidential hopefuls are pooh-poohing a carrot and stick approach that works just because it is Clinton's idea, when they are advocating the very same approach for political ideas they claim as their own. Specifically, the GOP wants to require local libraries and schools that take federal funds for Internet hookups to install prevention devices to protect our children from pornographic material.

Simply put, if you want federal money then you have to comply with the policy of the federal government. Without commenting on the benefits of such a program, the effect is exactly the same as Clinton's approach to fix our school system. The only difference is from whence the idea first came!

So, when all the ugliness that has enveloped Washington for the past years finally lifts -- and I hope that is real soon -- and people start paying attention to issues that really matter to them, we must make sure to consider what role we want Washington to play in our lives. And when doing so we must try to keep politics out of the consideration.

The answer will be far more credible and far more workable if we can do that one little thing.

archive