March 24, 2007

The Department of Departmentalism

When the federal government (read: George W. Bush) created the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, I—and hopefully a few other people—questioned why such a department needed to be established given that homeland security was something that was supposedly already covered by the Department of Defense, which has been in existence since 1789 (at the time it was called the War Department; it later became the Department of the Army and eventually the Department of Defense). If we’re already paying people to make decisions about defending the borders, and if they can’t do their job, why are we creating an additional department to cover the asses of those who messed up in the first place? Why aren’t we removing the incompetent bureaucrats and replacing them with competent ones (if they actually exist) instead of simply inventing what is essentially a pick-up-their-slack department?

...This is why the establishment of yet another cabinet-level department really shouldn’t be too shocking if its legislation is passed. As such, our nation’s penchant for a wide-reaching government has given us a push for yet another institution: the Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

...The bill (HR 808), which is sponsored by Ohio’s Dennis Kucinich (and yes, that’s the same guy who, along with several other politicians in Washington, is currently pushing to bring back the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine law), will establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence to set forth the following: (1) hold peace as an organizing principle; (2) endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights; and (3) develop policies that promote national and international conflict prevention, nonviolent intervention, mediation, peaceful resolution of conflict, and structured mediation of conflict.

...I’m guessing that the last point is strictly for structured mediation, since you can’t legislate to have structured conflict. That aside, I’m beginning to wonder if we’re embarking on what might be a twenty-first century approach to life where everything with which we might deal will need a cabinet-level department to oversee it. Allow me to explain.

...Peace is something that we should want without having to be told by a federal institution. It’s something that we should recognize as being more conducive to progress than war. Civility should be quickly identified as being more worthwhile than violence. The concept of being cool, calm, and collected should be adopted by both individuals and organizations sooner than the idea of being agitated warmongers. Therefore, why do we need to bloat the federal government any more than it already is?

...I use the term “bloat” intentionally because it’s obvious that wasting taxpayers’ money is the status quo in Washington. The recent legislation that was passed to set a timetable on pulling our troops out of Iraq had so much Democratic pork in it that the Republican minority was probably thinking, “They’re our people!” It provided $25 million for spinach growers who lost money on the E. coli scare; $120 million to the shrimp industry to compensate for Hurricane Katrina; $238 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program, which wouldn’t be needed in the first place if the government would stop mandating what the price of milk is; and $74 million to pay farmers for peanut storage.

...I’m a huge supporter of peace, but establishing a federal cabinet-level department to promote it sounds like nothing more than a nice way to create more bureaucracy, get a few family members and friends public sector jobs, and spend millions of tax dollars that we, as working people, can’t afford.

...Real peace starts with us, as individuals, who want to find more reasonable solutions than violence. It doesn’t—and can’t—exist in a Washington office where politicians will dole it out via pamphlets, brochures, and public service announcements.

...Moreover, if we’re going to begin a journey down this road of increased government intervention, we might as well prepare ourselves for a regular barrage of department creation. Why not a Department of the Internet, Department of Entertainment and Recreation, or Department of Quality Living? Of course each of these departments sounds silly right now, but we could very easily offer grounds for supporting each of them.

...If we really are to the point where we need a federal agency to “teach” us how to be peaceful, we might as well also create a Department of It’s-the-End-of-American-Civilization-As-We-Know-It.

References
Department of Defense
Library of Congress
Washington Post