A tyrannical government

Shannon Bohrer

(5/2023) The last several years have been unusual and difficult, not just to understand but also to accept. Our politics have been divisive, which by itself should be expected, but the divisiveness exceeded anything that would resemble normal, at least from my expectancy of normal. Our political differences have always existed but the differences seemed to explode under the previous president. Many expected the differences and conflicts to subside after the last presidential election, but that did not happen. If anything, since the election in 2020, the conflicts and differences have continued and escalated in many ways.

Our differences are wider and more entrenched than most of us would have ever imagined. The divisiveness reflects continued beliefs in false narratives that are unexplainable. Normal differences in policy, rules, and proposed regulations are understandable. One’s philosophy and political party affiliation have always been accepted as simply different opinions. However, when people disagree with science and known facts, as they have been for several years, that position is just unacceptable. How did we get here?

Early in the presidency of the "Very Stable Genius" we were given warnings that our common views and understandings were going to be questioned. "Alternative facts" and "truth is not always truth," were thought to be funny. After all, we were talking about our government. America has a history of criticizing our government, which is allowed because of the protections in the first amendment. In fact, criticizing and making fun of our government has always seemed to be a national pastime.

As President Teddy Roosevelt said, "When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senator do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not Guilty’." For many, too many, the jovial perceptions of the jokes have morphed into serious complaints, implying that our government is unjust and corrupt and should be eliminated or replaced. It was President Ronald Reagan that said, "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." Was that his belief or was he joking or maybe a little or both?

Our long history of citizens and political figures criticizing and making jokes about the Government seems to have transformed into a real hatred of the Government. This clearly happened over a long-time span but seemed to accelerate with the previous administration. We have a segment of our population that views the Government as the enemy and believes it should be dismantled. Far-right defenders of the second amendment have even made the argument that the second amendment was created for the citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. For discussion purposes, if that is true, who determines when a government is tyrannical?

Was the January 6th insurrection a failed attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government? That theme was prevalent during the insurrection. We saw many insurrectionists carrying Gadsden flags, a yellow-colored flag with a snake, and the words "Don’t Tread on Me." The Gadsden flag was a symbol to the British during the American Revolution that Americans would not be denied their freedoms. The Gadsden flag is popular and is displayed in many homes. With a catchy phrase, like "Don’t tread on me," they have an air of patriotism that sounds sensible. We, as citizens, have the right to question our government. However, attacking our government and assaulting police officers while trying to overthrow the Government is the opposite of being a patriot. In democracies, voting is how we change our government.

The principal reason for the insurrection was for the purpose of changing the outcome of the election. Our previous president asserted he won the election, which he did not, but many of the insurrectionists believed him. They believed him and also thought that the then vice-president could reject the Electoral College count. They believed that if the Electoral College counts were rejected, state legislators could reconvene and elect new representatives. In essence, the state legislators would be overriding the votes that were cast by the citizens in their states. If state representatives rejected the votes of its citizens, would that not resemble a tyrannical government?

In normal or ordinary times, we would expect some differences in our politics that reflect the normal disputed social and spending issues in society. How much do we fund education, how much do we spend on national defense, and how will we ensure the continuation of Social Security and Medicare? What is the Government's role in ensuring citizens’ safety? These and similar issues are normal and expected. However, the discord we are currently experiencing in our politics is a reflection of our country’s deepening divisiveness surrounding other issues. Examples like book bannings, repudiation of science and scientists, rejection of vaccinations, even the opposition to even wearing a mask during a pandemic. If you don’t believe in science, you may not think we had a pandemic, so you would think you don’t need a mask. However, science is real.

Many that supported the insurrection and the former president often use the word "freedom" as a noun describing their cause. The word "freedom" is used in their talking points and in their speeches, and yet their actions often limit our freedoms. Banning books, restricting women's reproductive rights, prohibiting educational programs, and even requiring women to report their menstrual cycles is not freedom. These actions are reflective of repressive governments and are expected with fascism, which is a tyrannical government.

Imposing one's will by banning books, eliminating educational programs, and limiting female reproductive issues is a reflection of control. When a group consistently touts the word "freedom" as a reason for protest and insurrection and simultaneously limits your freedoms, do they become the tyrannical Government they oppose? We do have a segment of one party that identifies themselves as the "Freedom Caucus," and they support book banning, limiting women's health issues, and even restrictive voting. That is not freedom, that is control.

Maybe their intent is not creating an oppressive or tyrannical government. Maybe the issue is control. Who is in charge? Telling us that "freedom" is their cause and then limiting or eliminating freedoms - is disingenuous. History tells us that dictators and fascist governments control the citizenry, limiting fundamental freedoms.

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ - Winston Churchill