Country or Government?
When I joined the Navy in 1948 I joined to serve my country. At the time, I was naive and believed that the country and the government were the same thing. I knew that political parties contended for the right to represent me in the government, yet, I persisted in the belief that the country and the government were one and the same. Over the years I had come to understand that they are not the same, that governments can change but the country does not change.
Here is the question: Would I join the armed forces to serve my government? Maybe yes and maybe no. What does the government stand for? We know that every election the balance in the legislature changes and different laws are passed that had not been able to pass in the past. The profound changes that are made, whether affecting me or not, show the impermanence of government. It is then difficult to hold allegiance to something so intransigent. Would I join to serve Newt? How about Pilosi? Reed? Byrd? Helms? Hastert? Frank? No. None of these. Why? They represent the government and it is these fellows that the parties contend with in order to obtain the changes they want. Get out the people that do not follow the desires of the people.
Who then represents the country? It is the President, the executive, the Commander In Chief, who is sworn to uphold the constitution. That person is now Obama. However, he has stated that he wants to change this country. Remember his statement: "My fellow citizens, we live in the greatest country in the world. Now I want you to join me in changing it." I agree with him it is the greatest country in the world, we have done things no other organized society has done, we are exceptional. If he changes it to what he likes, will it be what I like? He has already changed government to an increase in socialism and intends to go even further. To what extent will this change my country for which I am willing to serve? Will it still be my country as I recognize it now? Will the rule of law prevail? He does not follow the rule of law with his bailouts, has said he wants a justice on the Supreme Court who will listen to his heart, and wants additional power for the executive branch of government so that he can sculpt the private sector to his liking. I sense my country changing.
posted by Marcel at
9:40 AM
2 Comments:
This is a little long but it is my opinion of the "government versus country" question.
I'm not sure what you mean by "country".
Assuming by "country" you mean it's citizens then I believe the country IS the same as the government in the short term. Since we have a representative form of government and the majority of voting citizens elect the representatives then the government and the country are close to the same on the day after the election. After that they drift apart until the next election 2 or 4 years later.
Assuming by country you mean the constitution and system of laws then I believe the government IS NOT one and the same as the country. In this case the government is supposed to be the care takers of the country on behalf of it's citizens.
I believe the country is it's citizens but liberal politicians believe the country is it's constitution and laws. When BHO says he wants to change the country he means he wants to change it's laws, he cannot change it's citizens. Over time the citizen's attitudes and values change, they vote differently and that is why we have an intransient representative government.
By
John Beauregard, at 2:28 PM
John, Your second paragraph is the one I meant, the country that was set up by the founders, that insures our freedom, our rights and our ability to have our property preserved. Citizens set up this country to be the best they could make it, knowing that all the other countries had defects. They believed in individuals and were suspicious of groups. The constitution is now risk because of the need to have jurist that has a heart and does not follow the law.
By
Marcel, at 2:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home