There seems to be a foundational premise that undergirds the notion of social-justice that there are people out there somewhere who have somehow risen above the human condition. But this is not true. One need only peek behind the veil of pious, social-justice rhetoric to see the blatant hypocrisy of its loudest champions. This raises a question, or it should. If this “justice” were truly their passion, should they not be leading by example? How can someone like, say, the millionaire Michael Moore, be for social justice while living such a socially unjust life? The truth be realized, these millionaires want to impose on others a morality that they themselves have failed to achieve.
Of all that the American founders understood when they set this grand experiment in motion, their keen grasp of man’s propensity for evil might have been their greatest asset. And this asset led them to limit the power, not only of the government, but of the majority also. While they realized that government must exist, * they did not envision government as a benevolent god-like entity. No, they saw government as people who suffer from the same afflictions of arrogance and selfishness that plagues the rest of mankind; especially those who seek, and then are lent, the reins of power.
Some see government as naturally benevolent because politicians are freed from the motivation of profit. Such is a naive and gullible view. Politicians have plenty to profit politically by making popular promises today while strapping future generations with the bill. Meanwhile, for the “benevolent” politician, power is a great source of wealth, luxury and ease. One need only observe politicians, both the ones they love and hate, to see this.
Sadly, and much to even my own dismay, government is not a god-like entity that can usher in social justice, and this is especially true when it is elected by a constituency that rejects the very existence of moral absolutes. No, the government is a collection of flawed politicians with their own aspirations and venal motivations, because, in the end, politicians are people too.
* James Madison: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”