Who Needs Protection?

As rumors fly today that Trump will go around Congress to reduce the taxes on capital gains I wonder what the hell we are doing.  Who are we promoting?  Who are we protecting?  Who is benefitting from a year and a half of policy reversals?

I suppose the first real question is, should the federal government ever intervene with rules and regs in areas of concern?  I know libertarians and many conservatives say “no” to this question.  They argue that the government should govern less, not more.  I believe they are wrong.  If the federal government governed less we would still have slavery, we would still have segregation, we would not protect workers, we would not ensure the food we eat and fluids we drink are safe, we would not serve children with disabilities, we would not have allowed women to vote, we would not ensure that children do not starve, we would not ensure that workers receive at least some sort of minimum wage, we would not have ensured that minorities have the right to sit anywhere on a bus or in a diner, we would not have provided some sort of health care for the poor, we would not have monitored the environmental impact of business practices, we would have allowed the majority religion to enact laws promoting their beliefs, women would have no say in their own reproductive rights, women could be harassed, and on and on and on.  In fact, it has always seemed to me that libertarians and some conservatives must oppose all the advancements in our society, or that they do not see treating all humans the same as a good thing.  So my answer is hell yes the federal government must intervene to ensure equal treatment of humans regardless of wealth, race, sexual identity, religious belief, etc.  To not do so means we do not believe all men (sic) are created equal, but we believe that the strong and wealthy should rule.

So, who are we protecting now?  Who are we watching out for?  The answer is clear to me.  We are watching out for wealthy, white, Christian, heterosexual, men, corporations, banks, finance institutions and shareholders.  We are not watching out for poor people or people of color.  We are not watching out for our environment.  We are not watching out for groups who have historically experienced discrimination.  We are not watching out for women’s rights, or the rights of people with different religious views or the rights of people with non-heterosexual orientations.  We are not watching out for labor.  We are not watching out for public education.  We are not watching out for those who have no health insurance.  We are no longer saying, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  Nor are we following the words of Jefferson, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost”.

What is most interesting to me is the notion that the government that governs least governs best is quickly forgotten when promoting government rules and programs that help the conservatives.  As the economy crashed in 2008 it was the stock brokers and banks and auto industry who were first in line to receive handouts, and now as the tariffs hurt our farmers we quickly consider throwing money at them to help them.  Meanwhile, Flint has unsafe water and Puerto Rico continues to suffer from Maria and the President is threatening a government shutdown if he does not get funding for his wall.  Handouts to the wealthy are OK, just not for the poor.  Building walls is OK, but not building bridges for those who suffer elsewhere.  Giving the wealthy more money and policies to help them is OK, just not those who need it the most.

We are protecting those who least need protection.  We are protecting those who seek power and control without limits.  We are protecting those who are wealthy but still want more.  We are protecting the wrong groups.  We are protecting liars and sexual predators and con men.  And in doing so, we are losing what it means to be America.