Reverse Vigilance
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <5/23>

      Some months ago I pointed out one of the serious problems with a large government is the requirement of vigilance. The larger the government the less possible the vigilance. Losses of liberty can be snuck through on a thousand fronts and it is impossible to watch them all.
      On the other hand should there be a concerted effort to discredit the government its size becomes its liability. Any action by the government can be portrayed in a negative light and there can not be enough press conferences in a day to deal with any but the most serious charges. In the mean time dozens of small charges become gospel.
      The only thing preventing this from happening right now is a degree of responsibility in the press. Criticism is generally limited to political lines. It is much less common to find strong criticism of the government in the popular media that has no partisan interest.
      It is a mark of our times that our government is viewed as the property of the political party in power. It is the prize of the political process. And the reason to make the effort to win is to promote a partisan political agenda.
      Were there an organized effort to weaken public confidence in the government it would require no more than spreading deliberate lies. "Everyone knows" the government is in control of every thing. It is a simple belief to play upon.
      The government plans to institute water rationing all of the country in the summer and they use the IRS to collect the penalty and put you in jail. There are at least three things wrong with that statement and the out "it wasn't this summer but it is coming" is right there.
      Would anyone truly question the FDA might have plans to ban meat consumption? Throw in a ban on milk production and you will have mothers in combat fatigues marching on Washington within the hour. Claim its head is a vegetarian, find a publicity shot of him eating a salad at a speaking dinner and it is conclusive.
      Is there any other explanation for all those Post Office employees other than they are reading our mail? Haven't you always wondered why the most important mail is late? Why do you think they are trying to automate the Post Office other than they have a computer tracking who you are writing to?
      Of course you must ignore that relatively little personal communication is conducted by the mail but if someone brings it up point out the very silent background on the phones means they are being tapped by the FCC, and "everyone knows" how many employees they have.
      Consider the government has been able to minimize with great difficulty the allegation of an intention to ban all guns with an intensive effort to point out it is just some guns. Imagine the impossibility doing that on a hundred fronts.
      If each bill before congress were attacked with some sinister aspect to it the legislative process could be brought to a standstill. This would require very little work as the farther from the reality of bill the better. All that would be needed would be the working title.
      The citizenry of this country has a short memory when it comes to particulars. The people already have little confidence in the government. There are enough single examples, such as the Treasury Department being given the power to ban guns that another department banning meat is easy to believe.
      A large government such as ours is inherently vulnerable to this kind of attack. The lack of success so far has been that lack of serious effort. After all there is as yet no organized effort to over throw the government.
      Our government remains vulnerable to this kind of attack and there is nothing illegal about such an attack. And passing a law making it a crime to spreads lies about the government would not need any exaggeration.
      And besides, what is so wrong about hamstringing the legislative process?