On Labor Day, I gave a speechette (small speech) to around 750 Collin County Republicans and their friends who attended our Labor Day – Keep Texas Red Rally. While talking, it struck me that there is a big difference between “It takes a village” and “It takes a team.” Likewise, there are parallel and substantial differences between Democrats (“it takes a village”) and Republicans (“it takes a team”) which are reflected in these two widely different perspectives.
What are these differences?
First, whether organized along paternalistic (men) or maternalistic (women) lines, in a village there are always the “village elders,” those people whose wisdom excels beyond us ordinary folk such that they are in charge. These elders (think oligarchy, royalty, elite) organize us and tell us what to do (for our own good of course). The village people may engage in individual activities sometimes, but only those approved by the elders. Most efforts are focused on the collective, on the group, on the needs of the village. In this way of thinking, the village matters more than the people in it. Over time, the roles of ruler and ruled harden, such that there is now an elite group which run things, and you are either born into that group (you are royalty) or you aren’t. Any achievement in this atmosphere is never an individual achievement; it is the achievement of the village. This is why President Obama can say “you didn’t do it” or “it takes a village,” because with his (and the Democrats’) elitist outlook, it is the only thing which makes sense. You are born into the village and in the village you will stay. In the village, it is the village (and therefore the elders) which is sovereign over the people.
This is why President Obama can say “you didn’t do it” or “it takes a village,” because with his (and the Democrats’) elitist outlook, it is the only thing which makes sense.
But there is another system through which we get things done, that of the team. The team is comprised of people who choose to be members of it and who contribute their many and varied talents to the team’s purpose. In the team concept, it is the people who are sovereign over the team and not vice versa. Oh, the team members may accept temporary rules and regulations to help their team perform better and to maintain respect and peace among the various team members, but here the rules are accepted by the sovereign and not imposed by the sovereign. Because the team is comprised of individuals in their own right who are present voluntarily, the team is generally responsive to its members and its environment. Now in order to bring a level of coordination and effectiveness to the team’s efforts, there is generally a head person or group of people. And these people may have pre-existed the formation of the team, but they know that their power derives from the consent of the team members, because if the team members decide that the team leader is a jerk, they can and will leave.
In the village, it is the village which takes care of the people. On the team, it is the people who take care of the team.
Two fundamentally different philosophies, one from the old (the village) and one from the new American experiment (the team).
The Democrats’ desire for big government is merely a reflection of their view that the elders of the village have to control things for the benefit of the village as a whole. The Republicans’ desire for small government is a reflection of their view that each individual is sovereign, that each person can choose their destiny, and that each person can choose the team they are on. So vote Democrat if the only thing important to you is knowing where you fit in the village – they will gladly tell you what to do. Or vote Republican if you care about freedom, opportunity, and liberty – if you care about having the right to choose your own team.
