Moving On

   Now that politicians have proudly announced they have compromised on a way to keep government operating -- as if there was a choice, since canceling government is neither feasible nor realistic -- it's time to move on.
   But first let's consider the root of the disagreement over how government should function.
   There are two extremes: At one end is the idea that government governs best when it governs least. That's only a short step away from no government at all, and there are some who hold that belief.
   Another word for that is anarchy -- government by none. The next step is monarchy -- government by one. After that comes plutocracy -- government by a few.
   And no, that does not refer to the cartoon dog character, nor the planet, nor the ancient supernatural figure.
   The extreme in that list is anarchy, no government at all. That, however, is not practical. So the best of the available options is government by a few.
   But which few?
  There's the rub, and that social rubbing causes conflicts over which should be chosen to lead.
   But chosen by whom?
   More conflict.
   If the chosen few can run government, those who do the choosing will benefit, while the unchosen many will not.
   That has been the core of the American problem since the early years of the nation's independence. Only the chosen few could vote, and their support went to those who vowed to uphold the chosen system.
   Then came change.
   In the yearly years of the republic, only white male property owners could vote. Consequently, they voted for others of that ilk, who promised no change.
   Then came protests by workers, who united to force change by management to bring fair treatment. That, of course, led to conflict over what constituted fair treatment.
   Often, the reply was, "My way is fair, because I say it's fair. Besides, I pay your wages, so therefore what I say is more important."
   Circular reasoning. Compromise was not in their vocabulary.
   Sadly, much of that opinionating remains, as does the basic problem. How to keep government operating for the benefit of the many without punishment or excess cost to the few.
   That, of course, requires acknowledging that the purpose of government is to work for the benefit of the many, not just the few supporters of a partisan political party.
   Will it change?
   That will depend on whether each side learns to compromise.