The Dreaded "H"

The Significance of "Whanganui"

Martin Luther once quipped that the only part of the human anatomy the Pope had not sought to control was the rear end. But the Pope of Martin's day had nothing on modern western democratic governments. The control being exerted over human life by our government is unconscionable--and would have been inconceivable to both Luther and the sixteenth century papacy.

Should "Wanganui" be spelt with an "h" or not? This momentous issue, upon which the fortunes of millions of people depend, has been deliberated upon and decided by an organ of government ("The New Zealand Geographic Board"). For those readers qualifying as complete ignoramuses who had not even heard of the esteemed Board, we will do our best to fill in the obvious yawning chasms in your head by instructing you more perfectly:

The New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (NZGB) assigns, approves, alters or discontinues the use of names for geographic features (eg place names), undersea features and Crown protected areas in New Zealand, its offshore islands and its continental shelf and the Ross Sea region of Antarctica.

NZGB legislation

The NZGB is a statutory body of government operating under the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 and reporting to the Minister for Land Information.
(http://www.linz.govt.nz/placenames/about-geographic-board/index.aspx)

Now before we animadvert upon the decision to change the spelling of "Wanganui" to "Whanganui" we want to set some wider context. Firstly, on the relentless growth of government in the United States, the so-called "land of the free". David L. Bahnsen asks, Are you getting what you are paying for?"

I am borrowing this from newsletter guru, John Mauldin, who apparently borrowed it from The Privateer. It is verifiably true, and stunning beyond words.

In 1909 the federal government had an annual budget of $0.8 billion (yep, just $800 million). The population was 90 million. The cost of government was $9 per capita. In 2009, the federal government had a budget of $3,550 billion (yep, $3.55 trillion). The population is just over 300 million. That is a cost of $11,675 per capita.

So, are we 1,200x better off than we were 100 years ago in government services? 1,200x. Stew on it.

Conservatives err when they solely focus on the unaffordable nature of present government. It is too big, period. Too expensive, yes. Irresponsibly expensive, yes. And just too big. 1,200x more expensive (adjusted for population growth, mind you) than 100 years ago. Anyone care to compound the math out another 100 years? Heaven help us.

Government is just too big, period. That's the real point. That is what would have gobsmacked Luther and the Pope. But how did it come to this? At root such things are always religious: it is the dominant religion of our age which has produced such a calamity.

That leads us to our second contextual observation. One of the most penetrating and prescient pieces of writing on modern government we have ever come across is reproduced below. It is from the pen of Alexis de Toqueville, writing in the first half of the nineteenth century. If you find yourself shaking your head at the furore over the dreaded "h" in "Wanganui", and wondering with King Theoden, "How did it ever come to this?" then de Toqueville explains:

I would like to imagine with what new traits despotism could be produced in the world. I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, who turn about without repose in order to procure for themselves petty and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn apart, is a virtual stranger, unaware of the fate of others: his children and his particular friends form for him the entirety of the human race; as for his fellow citizens, he is beside them but he sees them not; he touches them and senses them not; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and, if he still has a family, one could say at least that he no longer has a fatherland.

Over these is elevated an immense, tuletary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood; it loves the fact that the citizens enjoy themselves provided that they dream solely of their own enjoyment. It works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in the principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances. . . .

After having taken each individual in this fashion by turns into its powerful hands, and after having kneaded him in accord with its own desires, the sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulation--complicated, minute, and uniform--through which even the most original minds and most vigorous souls know not how to make their way past the crowd and emerge into the light of day. It does not break wills; if softens them, bends them, directs them; rarely does it force one to act, bit it constantly opposes itself to one's acting on one's own; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it gets its own way; it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Cited by Paul A. Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), p. vi.

Despotism is back in the world--with a vengeance. Soft despotism--all embracing, all smothering. It "extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulation--complicated, minute, and uniform . . . ". It has reduced us "to nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." That is the real significance of the government ordered and commanded "h" in "Wanganui".

In our world the soft despotism of our government controls not just the rear end of the human anatomy, but the front end--and everything else in between. Luther and the Pope would have been aghast. But we . . . ? Let's just say it feels nice, and safe, and comfortable.