The coming political renaissance

Each year, I refresh my memory by reading the immortal words of Milton Friedman. He is arguably one of the greatest minds in Economics and sees himself as a public intellectual. The joke people make is everyone likes to debate with Milton Friedman, especially when he is not around! He is a formidable debater. He has a rapier sharp intellect and does not shy away from arguing his stand. His conversations with Phil Donahue and in later years with Charlie Rose are must watched recordings.

What makes Friedman special is that he can vary his arguments to for the level of understanding of society. That makes his social writings more understandable and accordingly absorbable. His wrings meant for the more intellectually serious are formidably technical > go read his Monetary History of the United States written with Anna Schwartz or even Money Mischief intended for the technically inclined layperson.

His position as a public intellectual, elaborating and laying bare the main issues of society is perhaps best summed up by the feelings of 1 commentator( American) : I f*king love Friedman because he makes things seemed so easy to understand.

I hope the same understanding is reached among the socially aware here in our country. The core of Friedman's philosophy must forever remain his assertions that government must have a limited role. There is a political interest for use here- get rid of government from business and you get rid of the little and not so little Napoleons.

Applied to local conditions here, it must also include calls for the government to stay out of business. The government should not see itself as Father Christmas continually dishing out goodies and freebies to its parish members. The government can't position itself as an all knowing and omnipotent entity, running the lives of people.

So what the writings of Friedman do I hope, is to enervate the imagination of as many people at large as possible. The exertions of sophisticated urban voters are good indicators that Malaysia is traveling on a promising future. The emergence of the socially aware or emergence of members of society with heightened awareness is a good signal for our society. It marks the beginning of the rise of society which is becoming more conscious of their own power. People have power. Government does not. People have real power. Ministers only borrow them temporarily. We shouldn't be afraid of government and ministers. We decide our destiny. We are responsible for ourselves.

So let us remind us of the significance of what Friedman wrote by looking at it again:-

"In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?

Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp."