The man-state paradigm

American Thinker ^ | January 20, 2019 | Gary Gindler

[WWII_Historian]

The idea of the superiority of individual freedom and individual good over the public good is the mechanism that led to the transformation of the backward colonies of North America into the mighty United States of America. At the same time, the dynamics of the development of political parties in our country is much more complicated, and the one-dimensional scale of the man-state does not sufficiently correspond to modern realities. However, if we take not one, but two variables into consideration – not only the level of taxes, but also the size of the federal government – then a two-dimensional political matrix of Washington will appear. This matrix consists of four cells.

In the upper left corner is the Democratic Party of the USA – the left-wing party, which advocates high taxes and a massive government (that is, a large state budget relative to the country's economy). Their opposite (in the lower right corner) is conservatives, whose political position is based on low taxes and a small government.

Only these two ideologies of the four presented in the matrix are internally consistent. The internal logic of these ideologies is clear: a big government requires massive taxes (Democrats), and lower taxes are needed to maintain a small government (conservatives).

The other two ideologies carry internal contradictions that do not allow these ideologies to hope for any long-term existence. One of these parties – the party of high taxes and a small government – never came to power in America, and, as far as it is known, such a party never has come to power anywhere in the world. High taxes and a small government are incompatible with each other. Such a party does not even have a name (indicated by a question mark in the matrix).

[Agatsu77]

Good Article.

[wildbill]

his explanation of the theories of government and their party adherents is simple to understand and correct as far as it goes.

However, putting the explanation into apposite boxes leaves out the Platonic perfect ideal theory in my opinion. Where is the box for the golden mean, the party of the moderately necessary taxation married to the minimum amount of government necessary to protect and serve.?

The Libertarian Party could reasonably try to take a position right in the crossing of the box lines, but this means the voters would have to abandon habits and try using reason instead of emotion.

Alas, the Libertarians can’t get any traction so I am left to choose between the extremes with the party that most resembles freedom of thought and action and that remains the Republicans.