Pocket Gofer 13

Pocket Gofer 13

Download the Pocket Gofer 13 here.

ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

• SEEKING AND HOLDING PERSONAL POWER
• EVOLUTION OF PERSONAL POWER SEEKING
• INTRODUCING THE PERSONAL POWER SEEKERS
• ABOVE THE LAW
• LETTING IDEAS SEEK AND HOLD POWER
• CONCLUSION

Jefferson: “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”

John Adams: “There is danger from all men.  The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”

Something over a hundred years ago a British bloke named Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  About the same time Victor Hugo said, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”

Friends, we already know it’s human nature to seek personal power over others.  Hell, each of us has done it, many times, and occasionally we have been successful.  It’s an ego trip.

Does this type of action contribute to good government?  In this pocket gofer we will dig into this question.  Then we will share an idea about ideas.  Welcome aboard.

In 1787, 55 concerned citizens from 12 newly independent United States of America got together and cranked out a document that we know today as the Constitution.  (Rhode Island declined to participate.  That state was also the last to ratify, in 1790.)  Many governments around the world even today agree with us that it was and is a great document.

Maybe it’s too great.  That is, over the past 230 years we have found so little need to make major changes in it that the public institutions and bureaucracies that were created (both legal and illegal) under it have had a chance to get entrenched and to resist any kind of real change.  The negative side of human nature had full play (lack of accountability) and jumped on it.

But the world changes, and we need to change along with it.  In fact, we dare to think that the pocket gofers will provide a beacon to guide changes that we citizens want and personally choose.

So, no one is perfect.  Those 55 men didn’t specifically and powerfully provide in the Constitution for the occasional sweeping change in government, to adapt to changes in the society.  Jefferson recommended this, but in 1787 he was not in town (serving in Paris as ambassador to France).

But we need to remember that back in those days government officials were watched closely lest they start taking cues from King George III.  There were no career politicians and very few bureaucrats.  Politicians were not paid, and other public servants were paid peanuts.

Officials then saw governing as a part-time job.  Citizens governed themselves; most of the action took place in villages and towns.  Government was as Lincoln later described it: “—– that government of the people, by the people and for the people —–.”

SEEKING AND HOLDING PERSONAL POWER

Alexander Hamilton said, “Man is ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.”  He craves personal power, seeks revenge whenever he thinks he has been mistreated, and he is greedy.

When he wrote those words the Industrial Revolution was just getting up a head of steam (so to speak; sorry).  It was to bring in the machine age, capitalism, and vast wealth to some other people besides kings and queens.  Capitalism is the only known way to accumulate wealth without violence.

Today we can see the connection between wealth and personal power, even if this insight may have escaped Mr. Hamilton.  Nevertheless, when it comes to describing what and who we are he was right on target.  He understood that human nature could egg men on to dirty deeds as well as good.  

Women also tend in their behavior to match his description.  This tendency also connects to human nature, and the last time we checked both sexes were definitely human.

Hamilton also said, “Men of this class, —– have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.”  Citizens listened to the man, and so they leaned hard on their public servants.

We saw power seeking played out not long ago as presidents Reagan and elder Bush did all sorts of things, some of them probably illegal, with our money.  They never told us what.  Rather, they “assumed the pretext of some public motive” that they called national security.

In this they were hardly unique.  Since the invention of the nation-state around 500 years ago top leaders and national officials have abused their citizens under the cover of national security.  Indeed, we are seeing it today, and it has got much worse.

Hamilton knew that a young and weak country needed an army.  But he wanted congress to review this necessity every two years.  He was worried that a permanent army would eventually get out of civilian control.

In this way a servant gradually becomes a master.  Order takes over from individual freedoms as the armed forces make ever-greater demands on the public treasury.  Ben Franklin said those who sacrifice freedom for security shall have neither.  (This one is heavy; think about it.)

Hamilton was no dummy.  President Eisenhower wasn’t either.  When he retired in 1961 from that office this career soldier gave a strong warning about letting what he called the “military-industrial complex” get out of control.

During the next 50 or so years hundreds of public officials ignored Ike’s warning, and our parents and we paid for their deceit.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  See Pocket Gofer 19.

In other pocket gofers such as 15 and 18 we demonstrate the truth: the officials running our government right after World War II and up to the present didn’t listen because they didn’t want to.  Even more important, they did not need to; no one forced the issue.

There was money and personal power in ignoring Ike’s warning.  There was keeping the gravy train a-rolling and thus getting re-elected over and over again.  The strategy worked beautifully ——— for politicians.  See Pocket Gofer 3.

Hamilton warned that a standing army instead of local militias would tend to settling disputes with guns instead of diplomacy.  “Might makes right” can close minds.  Today our government’s might is spread over so much of the globe that it is not difficult for us to draw an accurate conclusion as to its top officials’ mentalities.

In 2017 Rosa Brooks very capably elaborated on this conclusion.  Her book How Everything Became War and the Military Became Everything: Tales from the Pentagon is enough to wake the dead.

There are folks in other countries who don’t appreciate this.  They think American government officials’ minds are closed to expressions of their concerns.  See Pocket Gofer 11.

James Madison said “Where no substantial occasion presents itself,” power seekers try really hard to dream up “frivolous and fanciful distinctions to keep themselves in power.”

Like Hamilton, Madison understood human nature.  He knew that human behavior may change over decades and centuries, but human nature does not.

EVOLUTION OF PERSONAL POWER SEEKING

We begin with comments from an expert on the Constitution, Randy Barnett.  The introduction to his book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty asks Why care what the Constitution says?

“Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have eliminated clause after clause that interfered with the exercise of government power.  This started early with the Necessary and Proper clause, continued thru Reconstruction with the destruction of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and culminated in the post-New Deal (supreme) Court that gutted the Commerce Clause and the scheme of enumerated powers affirmed in the Tenth Amendment.

“As a result of judicial decisions, these provisions of the Constitution are now largely gone and, in their absence, the enacted Constitution has been lost and even forgotten.”  Our research has for years documented the deterioration of government, but we had not previously realized how far back it began and in full measure the sorry role played by the courts.

With our insights into human nature we should have realized this long ere now.  This is a truly damning indictment.  Many years ago we were in Washington and went to see the original Constitution comfortably resting in its helium bath.  A hidden voice urged us to “keep moving, please.”  Thinking about this years later, we wonder if the voice did not want anyone pausing long enough to read some parts.  Today we suspect that voice had a reason for the urging.

Barnett: “The Constitution that was actually enacted and formally amended creates islands of government powers in a sea of liberty.  The judicially redacted constitution creates islands of liberty in a sea of government powers.”  Friends, we have been bamboozled.  See PGs 4 and 7.

In 1774 power was violence.  Countries in Europe fought one another for some 400 years before and after that time.  But violence is power of a low quality because it always generates resentment, hatred, and desire for revenge.  It is the stick only.

From that time forward in this country thinking citizens have debated the merits of two conflicting theories of government.  Donald Livingston and Thomas H. Naylor (7/1997 column) refer to them as the compact and nationalist theories.

The first was advocated by Madison and Jefferson; it says “The Constitution is a compact of sovereign states which have delegated enumerated powers to a central government as their agents.”  This means the states and their citizens have more power to govern, and they freely vote to give specified parts of their powers to the central government.  This is bottom-up government al a PG4.

The second was pushed by Lincoln; it holds that the states were never sovereign.  Therefore the union must be preserved at all costs.  (The Constitution never did and does not prohibit the secession of a state from the union.)

And did it cost us!! Father fought against son; brother against brother.  It was American history’s worst war: 600,000 died, over half from diseases that spread like wildfire thru the camps (little was known of medicine at that time).

Lincoln imprisoned congressmen who gave him trouble during the Civil War.  Later President Woodrow Wilson crushed opinions that he considered “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive.”

Still later FDR interned 120,000 Japanese-Americans without consulting anyone.  This was top-down government.

What if Lincoln and his officials had bought Jefferson’s viewpoint and permitted the 11 southern states to secede?  We think those states would have eventually re-entered the union.

Slave labor was very inefficient.  Slaves had to be cared for even when too young or too old to work.  They had no incentive to work other than punishment for not working.

Only the stick motivated them.  With nothing positive in it for them, such as pay, most got by with as little work as possible.

Cotton was king, to be sure.  But not long after the Civil War the mechanical cotton picker was invented.  Maybe all that horrible bloodshed could have been avoided.

The impact of Lincoln, World Wars I and II, the Great Depression, and the Cold War have combined to cause most citizens to think nationalist.  But this line of thinking leads directly to granting excess power to the central government.

Crises have a persistent habit of influencing us in this way, as passions guide our behavior.  What we have neglected is involving ourselves in some rational thinking when dealing with each crisis, so that we maintain our grip on democracy.  Ike understood this need.

President Woodrow Wilson (about 1916): “The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests.  An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.”

After the Industrial Revolution power gradually came to be exerted thru wealth.  This was a higher quality power because people could use it to reward desirable behavior and deny rewards to the undesirable kind.

It used both the carrot and the stick to get the horse to pull the wagon.  Any resentment generated was most often nonviolent.

Now we are moving into what is being called an info-tech society, where knowledge and ideas hold power.  This will turn out to be power of the highest quality, once the overemphasis on lowest-quality military power can be remedied.

A person doesn’t need lots of money or smarts to come up with a good idea.  In fact, some of us today have done this, put it to work in the marketplace and made lots of bucks.

This includes poor folks without a fancy education.  Founder of McDonalds Ray Kroc was just an ordinary salesman in 1954.  So was Sam Walton, founder of Walmart, in 1962.  JK Rowling was actually poor before she wrote the first Harry Potter novel.  Each had a good idea.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a young Frenchman who visited America in 1830.  The French government wanted to learn how a democracy functioned, so Alexis made a lot of notes during his travels in this young country.

He found little power in Washington, which looked to him more like a small town in a farming area than the seat of our government.  The real power was out in the townships.

Today practically all personal power seekers are crowded chock-a-block into Washington.  Doubters need only try to find a place to park.  It is no coincidence that much of the nation’s tax money gets funneled into the same place.  See PG14.

In 1830 the federal government had authority over only national and international issues.  While it was strong in these areas, the day-to-day grit and guts of effective government was left to the citizens.

This is what the notion of federalism is about.  It is equal distribution of political power among the various levels of government, and most of it kept within citizens and their ideas.

Thru their state government officials, citizens allowed Washington to be strong only where they said it could be.  They didn’t permit Frankenstein to be created until much later.  Today’s politicians and their news media lackeys continue to call it a federal government, but the reality is different.

De Tocqueville observed that in 1830 American citizens made the laws under which they were to live.  Therefore they obeyed them; people support what they help to create.

He also commented on a widespread tendency of citizens to join associations.  That is, an individual was accountable to his/her God, but he also found it convenient to join with others to get some things done.

De Tocqueville did not find people organizing special interest associations to solicit unearned and inequitable favors from government.  That came much later, and it helped to create today’s Frankenstein.

There was very little wealth to squander on politicians, and so there were practically no career politicians.  Oh, a few officials served at length.  But they did not rely on special interest money; they were true public servants.  Ben Franklin said when such a servant left public service he/she moved a social step upward.

The kicker here is that due to human nature there is no end to power seeking.  As more and more pressure groups line up to buy juicy government handouts they gradually undermine officials’ ability to serve the wider interest.

Put another way, they abandon us citizens’ interests and go for the loot.  Furthermore, human nature makes a typical wealthy person a victim: having acquired some generates a yen for more, without end.

George Washington saw this happening (paraphrased): “A man acquires some pelf, — it only whets his  appetite for more.”

We discovered another interesting development.  After World War II Germany and Japan were completely devastated; their economies were destroyed.

Nevertheless, during the 60 years after the war these countries have made more economic progress than has Britain.  The explanation may be found in the fact that their governments had to build institutions almost from scratch.

Those in Britain, left mostly intact, just grew more bloated, stale, and irrelevant during that 60-year period.  This is also true of other western European countries after being rebuilt thru America’s Marshall Plan assistance..

Good government aims at just one objective: protecting the freedoms of citizens.  To do this it should preserve law and order, enforce private agreements, maintain competitive markets, and see that political power is dispersed.

Once power is concentrated in a central location it then becomes a threat to citizens’ freedoms.  The opportunity for personal power seeking attracts men and women who are (or soon become) self-servers instead of public servants.  Now we know why career politicians are rated lower than trash collectors (see PG 3).

It is human nature to look out for Number One.  This tendency applies to those who toil in the public sector just as fully as others who enter the private sector.

The key difference is that in the latter competition acts as a restraint on excesses and abuses of power.  That is, it does so when the market is free of influence peddling and corrupt government officials.

But, we might argue, surely the news media are exposing abuses of personal power every day.  We have only to learn details, organize, and act to knock the pins out from under the high and mighty.

Sadly, this cannot work today.  Gearino (2/2000 column) identified a really sneaky trick being played on us by the news media.  “The contemporary world is not a place that encourages pondering.  Events happen too quickly and are reported too efficiently for people to dwell on them.

“——- you need not spend time thinking about what it means.  That will be done for you, usually just minutes after the initial reporting of the event.  There are experts on every topic available at a moment’s notice, —–.”

Yeah, but, where’s the kicker here?  “If it were possible to measure such things, you’d probably find that the amount of time spent thinking about things has an inverse relationship to the growth of the media:

“The more media available to you, the less time you invest in simple pondering and mulling.”  Today MP3, iPods, notebook computers, multi-tasking, tweeting, Instagram, Podcasts, etc. enable folks to stay connected 24/7.  And career politicians love it, simply because they fear thinking citizens.

Okay, Okay. We will nail it right here.  The elite class in Washington does not want citizens thinking.  Folks who do that are potentially dangerous; they might organize and challenge the status quo.  See Pocket Gofer 10.

But why do the media utterly neglect their primary job, that of criticizing high public officials’ speech and actions?  With so much personal power centralized in Washington and the elites wanting to keep the public in the dark, they have gradually switched the emphasis away from good government and toward personality (power) politics.

This type of reporting in turn emphasizes high drama and scripted personal combat.  We like to watch and read about these, so that’s what we get.

Gearino finished with, “The same people who asked a lot of questions a generation ago don’t seem to tolerate questions gracefully nowadays.”  Today they are older and in power positions, so please don’t rock the boat.

Especially critical questions.  This makes a thinking citizen wonder how, without constructive criticism of policies and proposed laws, society can move forward.  Democracy lives and thrives on dissent.  Top-down rulers fear it.  We discuss planned gridlock in PG19.

Today we citizens have practically nothing to do with national lawmaking.  We know that practically none of the 7,544 pages of laws written in Washington in 1991-92 were for us, much less by us.

So there is far less respect for the law, and a lot of us violate it.  This is human nature: people don’t support what they don’t create.

We should not be surprised at today’s crime problem.  However, we should be angry and want to do something about it.

Washington will not.  Its lawyers could write a million pages of laws and this would only make the problem worse.  Watching our representatives’ table pounding and turbocharged windbaggery every election year would be amusing if they were not so misleading and unproductive.

Like many other issues stolen from us by the central government, petty crime is a community issue.  It can be solved only by citizens in these communities.

So why all the theatrics in Washington?  They are trolling for votes, of course.

De Tocqueville said that violation of the laws would lead to a much stronger emphasis on law and order.  He also said that whenever order gets emphasized over individual freedoms it will lead to tyranny.  He had seen this happen in his native France.

Benjamin Franklin said the same thing.  This is what our ancestors fought against back in 1776-1783.

In her book Dependent on DC, Charlotte Twight quoted Madison: “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is dully respected.  No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions …..

“This is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

In Madison’s day there was very little wealth flowing into Washington.  Today his point still stands, but in addition there is excess taxpayer money lining the pockets of the wealthy elite class.

THE CRIME FOIL: Now watch carefully while we unveil the hidden agenda of the elites in Washington.  If they could install a police state they would surely have the best of several worlds.

They could do whatever they pleased with our money, and if anyone dared to pitch a bitch simply lock him/her up and throw away the key.  The world history of government is shot thru with examples.  In just one example the Soviet Russian government would declare a dissenter insane and lock him up indefinitely.

But they dare not come right out in the open with this one.  We would want something to say about it for sure.

So they jump up and down, snort loudly, wring their hands and complain about the terrible crime problem.  We are supposed to want government to do something so old ladies will feel safe out walking in the evening.

This paves the way.  They gradually tighten the screws, and years later, presto!  Enter the police state.  (Must be done slowly, so the rabble will not suspect what’s really going on.)

“But citizens, we’re only trying to protect your freedoms! (ungrateful wretches).”

Allowing lots of guns everywhere falls neatly into place for the elites.  The NRA (National Rifle Association) lobbyists give congresspersons mucho dinero while the increased instability and violence caused by the presence of weapons add another layer to the paving.

The (James) Brady Center, Washington, DC: “More Americans were killed by guns in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997 than died in all of America’s foreign wars since its independence.”  Of course, just like crime, gun control should be a community issue (the 10th Amendment actually working).

Right after 9/11 President GW Bush created a new approach to crime fighting.  The usual law enforcement approach is to catch and punish the perpetrators, in this case those who planned the attacks.

But instead Bush declared an all-out war on terrorism.  This strategy fragments the government’s anti-terror efforts, thus spreading them too thin.

The result is more opportunities for further attacks in the future, as we have seen.  This partly explains why the Department of Homeland Security is a gigantic disaster.

Referring to a similar terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, a 5/2003 column by Gwynne Dyer: “As the government lunges about seeking targets to destroy, its real enemy becomes ever more insubstantial and hard to locate or attack … so Bush attacks countries instead.  At least they have fixed addresses.”

But note how the government’s hidden agenda ties in.  We peasants will continue to exist in a state of near-panic, and so BIG GOVERNMENT will continue to restrict our freedoms while claiming to protect us.  See the essay on the “External Threat Gimmick.”

The “Patriot Act” is a prime example.  It is supposed to protect us from terror.  Note further that the title of the act is deceptive, most probably by design.

Not all of us are taking this one lying down.  Stanton and Bazar (9/03 column): “E-mail messages and the Internet are under secret surveillance.  New warrants allow the government to search your home, bank records and medical files without your knowing it.”

Friends this is Soviet-style oppression.  Officials can now simply label some dissenter a terrorist and lock him up indefinitely without even an indictment.

“—— more than 160 communities voting to oppose some of the powers authorized under the Patriot Act, ———.  ————-.  The Bush administration has also created a new category that allows US citizens to be classified as ‘enemy combatants’ who can be held without charge and denied access to lawyers.”  Maybe “Gestapo captive” would be more accurate.

The war on terror cannot be won no matter how many soldiers and weapons are arrayed against the terrorists.  (See PG11.)  Therefore by dangling a phantom victory out in front of us the government now has the ability to keep the rabble under its thumb indefinitely.

The Economist (12/2005) reported that congress keeps trade sanctions in effect against Sudan, presumably to punish its government for genocide in Darfur.  “But the CIA has been cozying up to Sudan in the name of the war on terror.

“The administration has given hundreds of millions of dollars in food aid to help Darfur’s displaced people, but the House of Representatives has cut funds for the African Union’s struggling force which escorts the food convoys to the refugee camps.”  Ah, would you run that one past us again, please?

BIG GOVERNMENT: De Tocqueville was wise way beyond his years.  He predicted that citizens of the US would lose sight of the basic principles of democracy 100 years before the process seriously began.  President Roosevelt sped us down the road to Big Government, starting in 1933.

The young Frenchman also predicted overregulated industries and executives running to the government for help.  Ordinarily company bosses are against government regulations on their activities, but in this situation they want more of them and hire lobbyists to make sure they favor their firms.  PG8 elaborates.

DAMN!  Friends, we are into some heavy history here.  Surely we will learn something from it.  But, will the folks in Washington do so?

Before Roosevelt Washington was a small place.  Gradually, more and more money found its way to that city.  Television helped very much, as men (mostly) could speak “powerese” and be seen and heard by the multitudes as they stomped and snorted.

Now Frankenstein feeds on itself.  Our theory of accumulation of money suggests that as a pile of the stuff grows larger and larger and stays in one place longer and longer, people of questionable character will be attracted to it.  They know that as the mountain grows bigger it will be more difficult to exert tight control over it.

As the decades pass the mountain grows still higher.  Eventually even otherwise honest people see others helping themselves and getting away with it.  Their morals slip a notch or two, and the next thing we know their hands also dip into the cookie jar.  The theory works, sure as ripe garbage attracts flies.

Centralizing power in Washington was necessary if we were to effectively help our allies during World War II.  Seventy-five years later it’s still there, it’s no longer necessary, and it has got far worse.

It is stale centralization because after the Big War we kicked back and let apathy and inertia in through a wide open door.  That plus the cold war was all the “military-industrial complex” needed.  Now, instead of it serving our needs it is the reverse.

Political scientist Robert Dahl did a study in 1961, in which he concluded that for most folks politics lay “at the outer periphery of attention.”  What interested them much more were the primary activities of life, such as food, sex, love, family, work, shelter, friendship, social esteem, etc.

Michael Schudson portrayed the grim result of this lack of attention in his book The Good Citizen: “Nearly 40 years later the distinction between primary activities and politics cannot be maintained.

“Every one of Dahl’s ‘primary activities’ has been politicized.  Dietary guidelines have become matters for congressional debate, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has attacked the popcorn sold in movie theaters, and a well-organized social movement has put laws against tobacco use on the statute books at local, state, and national levels.

“Today terms like ‘date rape,’ ‘marital rape,’ and ‘battered woman’ are familiar.  ‘Deadbeat dads’ is a political rallying cry, a nominee to the Supreme Court has been publicly embarrassed by charges of sexual harassment, and state policy about women’s decisions on abortion has fueled the most extensive populist movement of our time.  The notions of representation, justice, and political participation have extended far beyond the sphere of conventional politics into ‘private life.’”

This illustrates the depth of the intrusion of powerful BIG GOVERNMENT into every part of our existence.  We have far less discretion in our choices today.  What is amazing is that people continue to believe the blarney we are getting from Washington concerning our enhanced personal liberty.

From Lewis Lapham’s book Gag Rule: “In New York these days nobody moves from dawn to dusk without making as many as thirty or forty cameo appearances on the reality TV programs that are continuously being filmed in the city’s stores, office and apartment buildings, restaurants, airports, jails, sports stadiums, ———–.”

The city must pay a lot of people to watch all this action, which must be fully as stimulating as regular daytime TV.  But how much are these people contributing to economic growth?

We wonder if some lightly trained civic-minded volunteers could do a better job with cell phones as they went about their productive business each day.  But BIG GOVERNMENT prefers it like it is, as its apparatchiks can collect and bank data on thousands of potential trouble-makers.

“A frequent result of a rights-oriented politics is to call forth additional governmental regulation or judicial intrusion in areas of life that state once left alone.  A quest for liberty has often produced a growing governmental presence, and invariably a growing disaffection with government, ——-.”  Ronald Reagan: “The scariest nine words in the English language is, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help. ‘”

We combined the cost of businesses and individuals complying with tons of government regulations at all levels with our total tax loads.  The conclusion was that close to 55 percent of what we earn gets sucked up in or due to big government.

Each year ever-greater quantities of money flow through government.  Small wonder that so many personal power seekers flock to Washington and state governments.

We can’t resist the temptation to repeat a quote: “That society which routes its best and brightest young people into government, which spends wealth, and not into the private sector, which creates wealth, shall not last long as a viable society.”  High government officials lock onto the power trip.

Congressmen in Washington say to local politicians “We’ll take the heat on taxes, so you locals can be perceived by voters as giving them something for nearly nothing.  But, when it’s re-election time for us you will bust your humps to help us.”

If money is raised where it is to be spent we can watch closely as our hard-earned bucks are put to work.  We can make our own determination whether they are being put to work on our behalf.  We can lean on those public servants who don’t respect our money and spend it efficiently.  (See PG14.)

They would know this, and so they would know that if they didn’t shape up they would be history.  This would be small government a la 1830.  See PG15.

Twight interviewed Dr. Richard Sobel of Harvard Law School: “What ID numbers do is centralize power, and in a time when knowledge is power, then centralized information is centralized power.  I think people have a gut sense that this is not a good idea.”  In 2013 Edward Snowden agreed AND he had the courage to act on his conclusion.

Twight commented on government-forced databases of personal information.  “Moreover, the federal government now reports an annual ‘information collection budget’ showing the ————- government’s information collection burdens imposed on the public.

“For fiscal year 2000 that document estimated 7,447,200,000 hours — over seven billion hours (our emphasis) — as the time cost ——– imposed on private citizens by federal departments and agencies.”

Something is seriously out of synch if we peasants live in fear of overbearing government: IN A DEMOCRACY POLITICIANS FEAR CITIZENS, NOT THE REVERSE!

The Constitution does not authorize any dealings between big government in Washington and individual citizens.  The amendments mostly specify what government may not do.

INTRODUCING THE PERSONAL POWER SEEKERS

From Dostoevsky’s book House of the Dead: “Whoever has experienced the power, the unrestrained ability to humiliate another human being …… automatically loses power over his own sensations.  Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease.

“The habit can kill and coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast.  Blood and power intoxicate ……  The man and the citizen die with the tyrant forever; the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible.”  We understand that the biblical King Herod had his three sons killed so that he could stay in power.  Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro might yet do much the same.

Chris Hedges in his book about war agrees: “In the rise to power we become smaller, power absorbs us, and once power is attained we are often its pawn.”  It is an addiction.

Friends, these quotes explain why existing power holders must be removed if we are to enjoy the fruits of democracy.  They demand that, having done this, we hoist a huge red flag whenever we even suspect that a public official is getting too big for his/her britches.

MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS: John Parker’s “Survey of America” appeared in the Economist (7/16/2005).  Among other things, he referred to a “——– federal government that is relentlessly increasing its powers over the states.”

Many otherwise smart folks don’t know that “federalism” means equal distribution of political power among the levels of government.  Therefore the man contradicted himself.

He went on to tick off several examples: No Child Left Behind, ban gay marriage, switching off life-support systems, class action suits in federal, not state, courts, etc.

In 1992 “our” congress wrote laws totaling 7,544 pages.  These claimed for congress many powers that are properly those of the people or the executive branch of our central government.  Many laws made violate the Tenth Amendment of The Constitution.

Members of congress had made themselves the Barons and Baronesses of Capitol Hill.  And that was a typical year.  PG7 elaborates capably.

It has become apparent that whenever the congress decides to add to its personal power it simply passes a law to make it legal.  The president can’t do much about it as each extra grab comes hidden inside a huge bill.

If he wants to reject the grab he must veto the whole bill.  (President Clinton’s line-item-veto law came and went within months.)  Or, the president may decide to go along with the congress.  He too likes personal power over us.

Power is the name of the game.  Congress writes laws with something for every one of the special interests in response to money-soaked pleadings for favors.

Pleaders bring tons of money to members through around 40,000 lobbyists.  Congress legalized PACs (political action committees) to funnel these bucks into members’ re-election campaign war chests, even tho this was unconstitutional and corrupt.

Today it has got to the point where there are so many lobbyists tugging congresspersons in so many directions that the central government is hawg-tied.  It is gridlock almost everywhere.

The companies, unions and other special interest groups realize this.  Today it’s no longer pleading.  The game is Mafia-style extortion.

Their expensive lobbyists and their research assistants are no longer a sound investment.  Lobbying has become Washington’s second-largest industry, next to government.  Roughly $25 billion a year changes hands.

Most special interests today want out, but they don’t know how to get out.  Each figures if he/she pulls out it will lose, but it gains little or nothing by staying in the game.  So we see that it is very nearly a losing situation (except for the politicians and bureaucrats).

Not only this, but the whole rotten mess sloshes around between us taxpayers and “our” congressmen, who were elected by us and whom we trusted to serve our interests.  They have betrayed our trust. 

The Economist 8/2017) reports on what we will see in the American media. Trust makes much if not most of the virtues of capitalism: can trade with someone you don’t know.

“America is a grumpy and confused place.  For an overarching explanation of what has gone wrong, a decline in trust is a good place to start.  Trust can be defined as the expectation that other people, or organizations, will act in ways that are fair to you.  In the white house and beyond there is precious little of it about.  People increasingly view institutions as corrupt, strangers as suspicious, rivals as illegitimate and facts as negotiable.

“The share of Americans who say, ‘most people can be trusted’ fell from 44% in 1976 to 32% in 2106, according to a survey from the University of Chicago.  In a new book, The Retreat of Western Liberalism, Edward Luce, a commentator for the Financial Times in Washington, argues that distrust will contribute to America’s decline and eventually, even, to autocracy.” 

Public service performed by public servants?  Baloney.  In today’s Washington it is self-service.  From the beginning it was proper to address congressmen and women as “the honorable” senator blank.  That was then.

Do we want to be ruled by a king in the White House and 535 Barons and Baronesses in the congress?  Where did George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other subjects get the idea they didn’t like being ruled by King George III and the British parliament?

After lengthy discussion and soul-searching, they did something about the situation.  Subsequent generations of American citizens have been very grateful that they screwed up their courage and risked their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” (from the Declaration of Independence.)

We need to ask whether our future generations will feel grateful for our efforts on their behalf.  We are asking.

THE PRESIDENT: We are beginning to wise up.  We got rid of elder King George Bush in January 1993.  But we need to know more.  The pocket gofers surely don’t tell all; that would require books and books or gigabytes of memory.

We see that deception and fraud are necessary as a cover (PG19).  If we knew what Washington insiders were really doing we would pitch them out on their corrupt keesters.  See Peter Schweiker’s book Throw Them All Out.

Hundreds of people accompanied Elder Bush wherever he went: helicopters, armored limousines, weapons vans, secret service men, personal assistants, reporters, advance people, logistics experts, etc.  He must have just loved all those feelings of personal power.

The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) reports to the president.  It is authorized to take unlimited money from other agencies in the government.

This means the president can do anything he wants.  Why?  Because the CIA is a cloak-and-dagger outfit and so the president can keep secret from us most of its activities.

Or, he could until recently.  The media today are slowly developing a taste for real news about Washington, and this is good news.

Perhaps too slowly.  John Yoo (Wall Street Journal 7/2007): ” Without secrecy, the government can’t function.”  We vehemently disagree.  Secrecy may be appropriate and even necessary in certain situations, but each such instance must receive prior approval from citizens.

Jefferson: “The art of government consists in the art of being honest.”  In a democracy government can’t function unless citizens know what is going on, what they are paying for.

Anytime public officials discuss business among themselves citizens have a right to know.  This is why the Freedom of Information Act was passed: citizens forced it.  (The fact that congress exempted itself was kept secret.)

If every high official knew that any of his/her remarks might see print they would become honest that fast.  Its presence would attract honest citizens to stand for public office, rather than the looters we must live with and pay for today.

Withholding info by one branch of government from inquiry by another violates the constitutional principle of checks and balances.  In a trial the prosecution and defense may not withhold evidence.

9/11 and the Iraq war has revealed the fact that the CIA, FBI and about a dozen other cloak-and-dagger agencies are not only incompetent.  There is fraud among them.

Dick Polman (late 10/2005 column) observed that “The Bush administration’s rationale for war is now officially on trial.  ———–.  This case is about the credibility of the war architects who pushed to invade Iraq while assailing dissenters who questioned the evidence.”

Bob Drogin wrote a book called Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War.  “Curveball” asked for political asylum in Germany.

We have previously noted that (v-p Richard) Cheney and company were keen to attack Iraq.  When it became clear that Curveball had detailed knowledge about Iraq’s weapons programs they desperately wanted to question him but the Germans did not cooperate.

Nevertheless what American officials could glean from the Germans got inserted into several intelligence reports, Bush’s state of the union message in January 2003 and Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN.  But all of the “detailed knowledge” was a fraud dreamed up by Curveball in order to win political asylum.

A Washington motto reads, “If you don’t like the message, don’t try to refute it.  Simply shoot the messenger.”  But truth has the nasty habit of emerging at the most embarrassing time for the elitists.  We see here why Curveball cut out of America.

Was Bush the big pusher on Iraq?  Maybe yes, but “— during the Clinton era, Cheney was a charter member of a Washington think tank — the Project for the New American Century — dedicated to the overthrow of Saddam.  And with the younger Bush in power, Cheney became the foremost advocate for war, ——.”

Former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft criticized the neo-conservative vision of exporting democracy thru force.  By its definition, democracy is free choice by citizens as they form a government and guide its operations.  No one can force it.

Scowcroft: “I consider Cheney a good friend; I’ve known him for 30 years.  But Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore.”  Among other ridiculous things, Cheney tried to exempt the CIA from a ban on cruel interrogation techniques, including torture.  Yes, we wrote above that it is a disease.

His top aide was indicted, his poll results dropped, and some of his fellow republicans  questioned his judgment.  Cheney competed with Rumsfeld as the most war-obsessed person in Washington.

In early 2006 Bush said Rumsfeld is the best defense secretary the country has ever had.  In November he canned the blustering incompetent.  This was not his idea; he was forced due to criticisms by at least six retired generals and a public uproar.  Altho rarely, the public voice can be heard.

The news media frequently claimed that Mr. Bush had the most powerful job in the world.  But friends, in a democracy the president is an agent of the people.  We are his bosses.

If any taxpayer should have the audacity to inquire about what he is doing with his/her money the president “assumes the pretext of some public motive:” (Hamilton) national security.  Simple, actually.  Jefferson said the government should keep its accounts “—- like a merchant’s books, so that any curious citizen may examine them at his leisure.”

Where did we get the idea back in 1776 that King George III was a bad bloke?  He did anything he wanted to do.  Surely seems like those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

In 1774 a colonist in Boston murdered a British subject.  King George III said the trial must take place in England.  There was less than half a chance that such a trial would be fair, and colonists didn’t like it one little small bit.

In 1989 King George Bush sent our army to invade Panama without asking us.  They searched for and found the country’s top leader, Antonio Noriega, kidnapped him, and brought him to  America for a “fair” trial.

Did the citizens of Panama like this?  We don’t know.  Did anyone inquire?

Panama is not even one of our colonies.  Would the citizens of Panama agree that might makes right?

Iran wanted to grab Bush.  How would we have reacted to an Iranian army invasion for this purpose?

Maybe the younger George was more enlightened than was his father.  Maybe not.  Ivins (January 2000) gave us a warning before he became president.  “—–(Texas) Governor George W. Bush’s effort to stop a Bush-parody site on the Internet.

“The parody, run by —– Zack Exley, annoyed Bush so much that he called Exley ‘a garbageman’ and said, ‘There ought to be limits to freedom.’  (That’s not a parody; he actually said that.)

“Bush’s lawyers warned Exley that he faced a lawsuit.  Then they filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission demanding that Exley be forced to register his parody site with the FEC and have it regulated as a political committee.”

Good grief.  If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

But later when Bush was president along came 9/11.  The barons and baronesses of the congress were forced to yield great personal power to the president.

Many of us can recall the tidal wave of testosterone that engulfed Bush as he formally announced a state of war immediately after the attacks.  Students of human nature imagined they could actually see this happening as he spoke.

In the heat of the moment did President Bush lose control?  Alterman and Greene in The Book on Bush: “—– Bush explained: ‘Never [in] anybody’s thought processes … about how to protect America did we ever think that the evildoers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets … never.’  ———-.

“And in June 2001 the German intelligence agency, BND, informed the Americans that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack ‘American and Israeli symbols which stand out.’”

Alterman and Greene continued: “—— Bush himself ——- briefings during the summer of 2001, ———-.  Each warned that a major terrorist attack against the US ——–.”

Mr. Bush was too young to have had “senior moments,” so we conclude that he lied to us in order to cover his butt.  Leaders accept responsibility for mistakes, but not politicians.

In late Fall 1941 President Roosevelt knew precisely where the Japanese fleet was, where it was heading and what it planned to do when it got there.  FDR was frustrated because his expensive taxpayer-paid social programs had failed to lift the economy out of the Great Depression and a survey showed that 88% of citizens did not want America entering World War II.

He accurately figured that entering the war would do the job, but he knew his actions had to be secret.  He announced on the radio (no TV then), calling it “a day of infamy!”  All this plotting was “classified” data until 2005 when it was de-classified.  John Stinnet trolled thru these data and wrote a book titled Day of Deceit, which exposed the truth. 

Did Bush read that book?  Well, no.  He and Britain’s Tony Blair attacked Iraq in 2003.  But just like FDR he had to rely on secrecy; a majority of citizens did not want to attack Iraq.

The Economist (11/2001): “—– authority that —– American and British governments, faced with a new terrorist threat, now seem to hanker after —– the power to get things done unfettered by the pesky rules of the law.  Though tempting, the idea that casting aside most legal constraints is necessary to fight terrorism, or will make Americans and Britons safer, is a delusion.”

President Bush’s special police rounded up some 1,200 people.  “Many have reportedly been held in harsh conditions, and not allowed to contact a lawyer or to notify relatives of their arrest.  The Justice Department is not only refusing to reveal their names, it has even stopped saying how many have been arrested.”

To our always-handy copy of the Constitution.  The Fourth Amendment: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.”

Eighth Amendment: “—– NOR CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED.”  The government had little or nothing on many of these people.  They just looked Muslim or otherwise suspicious.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was addicted, as the Economist demonstrated: “—– recently imposed a new change in prison rules allowing conversations and letters between terrorist suspects and their lawyers to be monitored without a judicial warrant, suspending the Constitution’s Sixth-Amendment right to effective counsel.

“This move is drastic, as well as unnecessary.  There are already ways —–.  Mr. Ashcroft tried to sneak his rule past the public with little fanfare and no reference to congress.”

The Patriot Act is an anti-terrorist law that gives the government new surveillance powers, such as monitoring Internet traffic without a court order.  High officials had been looking for an excuse to gain control over the ‘Net, and Osama bin Laden came thru for them.

Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State at the end of the first young Bush term.  Like Eisenhower, he is a career soldier and a diplomat, so he did not fit in the with the power elites.

Bush then hired in his place Condoleezza Rice, who apparently did fit.  Alterman and Greene: “—— complained that too many US policymakers were ‘uncomfortable with the notions of power politics, great powers, and power balances.’  —————.  ‘The result of this process,’ she warned, was ‘the `national interest` displaced `humanitarian interests` or the interests of `the international community`.’”

She was a Bushie, all right.  With time in office she probably did some independent thinking, but Bush did not appreciate any new ideas.

In January 06 we finally saw evidence that the Texas gunslinger was being restrained from exerting his awesome personal power on a whim and damn the Constitution.  Independent monitors were watching his reaction to the new ban on torture.

The Bush administration said this was “an unwarranted attack on the exercise of executive discretion.”  This dodge had been used by previous presidents.  It was then and is now a crock.  In a democracy executive privilege or discretion does not exist.

The Economist (1/2006): “And even though Mr. Bush eventually gave in to the public outcry on this issue, it has not emerged that at the very moment of signing the bill into law the president quietly issued a statement reserving his right to flout it.”  Apparently it’s not just damn the Constitution.

PG19 shows that looters in Washington can and do cooperate to fleece the public, but personal power is a strictly personal thing.  It’s every man for himself.  Those who stand in the way are simply destroyed.

In his book Good to be King Badnarik raised a most interesting question.  “Ever since Abraham Lincoln, however, American presidents have found it more convenient to sign executive orders that presume to make laws that apply to all American citizens.  (Obama issued a lot of these.) How does that differ from kings and emperors who assumed dictatorial power over the territory under their command?”

Babington, News & Observer 3/1/2009: “The US chamber of commerce, which also backed the stimulus bill, said Obama’s budget blueprint: ‘appears to move in exactly the wrong direction.  More taxes, heavy-handed regulations, and command-and-control government will not hasten recovery.”

We were not surprised that Barack Obama turned out to be yet another personal power seeker.  After all, he was yet another career politician (see PG3).

We still love people, but we fervently wish they were not such utter fools (Economist 7/2009): “——– a libertarian scholar called Gene Healy wrote The Cult of the Presidency, —- decrying the unrealistic expectations Americans have of their presidents.

“As a campaigner, he (Obama) promised to ‘change the world,’ to ‘transform this country’ ——- ‘create a Kingdom right here on earth.’  ———-.  He vowed to create millions of jobs, to cure cancer —-.

“The Founding Fathers intended a more modest role for the president: to defend the country when attacked, to enforce the law, to uphold the Constitution — and that was about it.”

Worshipping a cult-man when surely by now we understand campaign political promises after Clinton, Bush et al?  Friends, we need to get real, cut to the truth and act on it.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT: Lapham’s word processor has grown a set of teeth.  “The administration assumes the colors and usurps the standard of freedom to mobilize not the defense of the American citizenry against a foreign enemy, but the protection of the American plutocracy from the American democracy.”  WOW!!

Government rhetoric screeches about al-Qaeda and other foreign ogres.  When the news media cooperate, this sound and fury distracts peasants’ thinking from the real enemy within.

This enemy is developing surveillance systems that can recognize people and detect suspicious behavior.  This includes models that link posture and intent and identify a person in a crowd who has a concealed package.

Sensors can measure skin temperature, perspiration and heart rate.  These tools can also identify good citizens who may be developing dissenting opinions.

In 2013 Edward Snowden was employed by a branch of the CIA.  He not only determined that this government surveillance of its own citizens was wrong; he also had the courage to act on his convictions. 

He collected terabytes of incriminating data and left the country with all.  Today he remains in Moscow under Russian protection so the looters in Washington cannot get to him.  Thinking citizens know he is a hero.  We hope that our efforts will lead to the change in government we seek, in which case he could return to his native land.

The rhetoric, of course, emphasizes catching bad guys.  But the implications for free spirits and their thinking and expression are ominous, to understate the case.

The colossal Executive Department bureaucracy annually fobs off some 70,000 pages of administrative law on us.  These bureaucrats need not pass beneath voters’ noses, and so they are power centers in and of themselves.

Here’s a rough idea of how this works.  Congress frequently wants laws that members know citizens don’t like.  These wimps fear the lash at the voting booth if they pass them.  So, they or, more likely, their lobbyists draw up a bill that reads like it benefits the public, but the wording is vague.

Now, the Executive Branch of government is constitutionally required to enforce the law.  Enter the bureaucrats.

They take their cues from the congress, and enforce to suit the Barons and Baronesses.  They are rewarded with promotions, salary increases, perks, prestige, and opportunities to schmooz with the glitterati.

Friends, it has become a posh life, and on our dime.  We are paying to have our behavior indirectly regulated: 70,000 pages’ worth each year.

THE LONG-ROBED POTENTATES: Never mind the Constitution, which says the congress makes law and the Supreme Court should interpret laws passed by the Congress in terms of the meanings and intent in that document.  Members of the Congress also fob off dicey laws to the Bench, as the Economist (4/2000) observed.

“The courts routinely decide what a law actually means because congress routinely fails to be explicit.  Does the Americans With Disabilities Act cover people with AIDS?  Congress did not say, so the courts had to determine that it did.

The High Court also feels the nudge of personal power seeking.  We must conclude that with high officials in all three branches of government involved, there’s a whole lot of seeking going on.

Justice Cardozo commented on “——- the Constitution’s limitation of congress’s power to let regulators write law.  ‘Here, in the case before us, is an attempted delegation not confined to any single act nor to any class or group of acts identified or described by reference to a standard.

“Here, in effect is a roving commission to inquire into evils and upon discovery correct them.'”  In Amity Schlaes’s book The Forgotten Man: A New History of the great Depression she noted that Cardozo said this about 1933.

Apparently the High Court has been writing law of sweeping scope for a long time.  Justices in 1933 knew that the Constitution specifies that only the congress may write law, and they still know it today.

They also know that this practice tremendously increases the power of BIG GOVERNMENT over ordinary citizens.  But it does not faze them.

The Constitution gives government the power to regulate interstate commerce.  In 1787 founders were concerned that states were throwing up trade barriers between them.

But a long series of decisions since then have broadened the interpretation of this power to include practically any economic activity.  A decision prohibited an AIDS patient from growing marijuana to ease his/her pain.  No commerce here, and certainly no interstate commerce.

We might ask, to what end?  What is Big Government after?  After years of research and thinking about human nature, we conclude with great alarm that officials’ hidden agenda is a police state.

Yeah, that is really scary.  Because the elite class consistently disregards such things in the Constitution as freedom of speech, we might get fried just for writing this.

And now we will see that the seeking is not limited to officials in government.  Seems like everyone in Washington has tried the drug of personal power and got turned on.

In 4/2006 George Will penned a column titled “The House Shuts Down Free Speech.”  “——— republicans —.  “Traducing the Constitution and disgracing conservatism, they used their power for their only remaining purpose — to cling to power.  Their vote to restrict freedom of speech ———-.”

In the same column Will claimed surprise.  “Oh, so that is what First Amendment means: Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech unless such speech annoys politicians.”  Dostoevsky’s ghost is hovering over Washington.

PUNDITS: Pundits are a species unique to Washington.  They are super-powerful news columnists who insert their thinking between us and “our” government.

They tell us what to believe among the bits of news that enter our eyes and ears.  We will soon learn that “bits” is all we are getting.

They “have the King’s ear” so to speak.  That is, they have access to the pinnacle of power in government.

They determine how much truth we deserve to receive.  They are notoriously stingy with it.

But maybe we should not blame them for this.  The grim reality is that there is damn little truth to be found in Washington.

This is control of information flows.  It violates at least the spirit of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  We explore the issue of control of information in PG5.

It is not healthy to concentrate flows of information in the hands of a choice few.  This distorts the power structure, and it places in the pundits far too much personal power.

These towers of power are hung up on a cold war mentality.  They steadfastly believe in “might makes right.”  They love to flex their literary muscles, and they love rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty.

The hype is they see themselves as cartoon-like super-heroes, and they have fooled many of us into believing this bilge water.  The reality is they are speeding along the process of the decline of our country into weakness.

They toss us peasants a crumb now and then, in the form of a bit of real criticism of government shenanigans.  “F’gosh sakes keep the rabble quiet!”  Let the show go on.

In 1992 Clinton campaign managers wooed the pundits.  The former knew that if they could recruit the latter group to their side Bill would win it.

The pundits decided to abandon elder Mr. Bush.  They fired up their word processors and steamrollered Mr. Clinton over Gennifer Flowers, dope smoking, the Vietnam draft dodge, and straight into the White House.

LAWYERS: Years ago we concluded that lawyers aren’t about to miss out on this one.  Over the past 50 years they have developed incredibly keen noses for money.

One study showed that in New York City about 80 percent of medical malpractice claims filed were without merit.  Lawyers bill for unrelated activities, coach witnesses to over-dramatize their injuries in court, bill for far more hours than they actually worked, and bill at a professional rate for nonprofessional assistance.

One lawyer drafted a legal motion on behalf of his client and applicable to thousands of separate cases.  He then billed the clients roughly 3,000 separate times for the same few minutes of his time.  Another lawyer billed 62 hours in one day.

We heard of one who died young and upon arriving at the pearly gates complained to St. Peter: “I’m way too young to die; this isn’t fair at all.”  St. Peter asked how old the man was and he answered 42.

St. Peter admitted: “This is confusing.  According to the number of hours you’ve billed, we thought you were 93.”

In the famous Manville asbestos case witnesses were coached to claim that 75-80 percent of asbestos used was from Manville Corporation.  Soon the company ran out of money and went bankrupt.

A few months later witnesses were saying that Manville supplied only 25 percent.  At this point lawyers were going after other companies, who still had some money.

There is a finder company in Florida that finds accident victims and sells names to lawyers.  A study learned that many folks with broken bones ended up with less money than if they had not hired a lawyer.

Lawyers love contingency fees, which means if they lose they get nothing but they make out like tall dogs if they win.  They apply these to sure-fire win cases, practically none of which even go to trial.  A few phone calls, a letter or two, and here comes 30 percent of anything from several thousand to a couple of million dollars.

A good example is air crashes.  Lawyers used to crawl through wreckage with grieving relatives, signing them up.  There was no question of a win, but the contract called for a contingency fee anyway.

Back when we studied business law (1967) a contract signed under duress was not valid.  We suppose the lawyers have rigged — er, fixed this one by now.

The trade is so loaded with money that everybody and his/her cousin has gone to or is in law school.  This means too many lawyers and not enough business.

No problem.  Almost half the congress are lawyers, so they cooperate when lawyers want another law passed which is aimed at increasing the demand for their “services.”

With rare exceptions lawyers add nothing to the economy.  That is, they don’t create wealth.  They only take it from us and from companies.

GOOD GRIEF! Is there any way to stop this rape of the citizens?  —– thought we’d never ask.  Watch us.

If we citizens make our own laws, we can and will write them in plain English.  We will need no experts to interpret them, as each of us will be able to understand that which he/she created in the first place.

We will obey them because we created them.  We will stand accountable in the case of any question or dispute.

We will hold our heads high as soon as we acquire some degree of control over our lives.  This will be a wonderful feeling (PG4).  A second wonderful feeling will hit us when those millions of lawyers find something productive to do for a living.

PARTY TIME: The two main political parties exert great personal power, even tho the largest group of voters is neither democrat nor republican.  A recent study has 36 percent independent, 35 percent democrats, and 29 percent republicans.

Few of us know it, but we pay the salaries of hundreds of party workers.  How can this be?  Today’s government does anything it thinks it can get away with.

Parties have rigged the system to make it very difficult for a third party to get off the ground in elections.  We figure if anyone can do it that person would be Ross Perot.

We salute him for exposing several government skeletons during the 1992 presidential campaign.  But later the elite class shut down even this multi-billionaire.

The two parties are not only in bed together (see Pocket Gofer 19).  They know they are not doing a good job.  If they were they would not be so careful to discourage the competition that would enter the ring with a third political party.

Back in about 1965 Alabama governor George Wallace said there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties.  Today this is still true, even as the rhetoric called the faithful to the battlefield in 2010.

In 1790 Tom Paine wrote, “While they appear to quarrel they agree to plunder.”  This is human nature acting when no one is watching.

Every good sports team seeks competition as a test of their talent and drive.  Ditto for every well-managed business.  But politics is apparently a different game.

The Economist (10/2002): “—— Mr. Bush is Clintonian in both his partisanship and his energy.  Dwight Eisenhower hardly concealed his disdain for his party.  Ronald Reagan ——- put little energy into supporting republican candidates, ——–.  George Washington: “—– the bane of party.”

Mr. Bush’s father had little time for republican hardliners.  The son was thoroly at home in the world of the permanent campaign.

“But Mr. Bush has one huge advantage over Mr. Clinton: people believe the guff about his being above politics.”  Citizens do not yet realize that everybody and everything in the nation’s government has been politicized.  We should read this as distorted in favor of a power-seeking elite class.

Political parties today do little besides collect money and route it to members of Congress.  Campaigning is televised mud slinging and not many party workers are needed for this sleazy task.  (We note  here that in the 2008 campaign Obama’s people went to social media in order to defeat democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.)

Being damaged goods, parties are no longer relevant in today’s political environment.  But this doesn’t stop top officers from building personal power.

THE VEEP: Even the vice-president feels powerful.  When Harry Truman was vice-president he had a staff of four and lived in a two-bedroom apartment.

He paid the rent of $140 a month out of his own pocket.  He was nearly the last of a dying breed: the true public servant in high public service.

Vice-President Gore lived in a mansion.  He had access to a bunch of cars, a jet plane, a $90,000 entertainment budget, a 60-person staff, and four offices, all supplied by the taxpayer.

Another $3.5 million of our money went into a major renovation of the mansion.  We listened to Mr. Gore brag about his waste-cutting efforts in government, but it seemed there was a hollow ring to his words.

Dick Cheney was far-and-away the worst power seeker in veep history.  He gathered a group together to formulate a new energy policy.  The Sierra Club was not invited.

Suspecting that the attendees were all big oil executives, the club sued to obtain their names and the minutes of the meeting.  Cheney refused, claiming executive privilege.

To our knowledge this is the first time a veep has used this unconstitutional gimmick.  We regret to report that he got away with it.

He told NBC news that neither the congress nor the people have the right to pry into the government’s secrets.  Put another way, just shut up and go on paying for whatever the elite class decides to do.  Friends, this is a crock.

We have career soldiers Eisenhower and Powell favoring diplomacy over guns.  Then there is Cheney, who never served in the military, flogging big guns in foreign policy.

The Economist 2/2007: “—— in reality he is the quintessential Washingtonian.  “—– obsession with spin and gossip, including an over-inflated sense of the importance of newspaper articles; a hyper-sensitive nose for threats; and, it would appear, a determination to destroy his enemies by whatever means necessary.

“But at least Americans have learned a little bit more about the power behind King George’s throne.”  Friends, this is the type of person that spends our tax money and does not tell us how.  They are the enemy within.

Over the past 60 years they have gradually infiltrated Washington.  Cheney was only the worst, with Ashcroft giving him a run for the title.  Both of these men are gone now, but there are hundreds more.  All should be removed.

BIG BUSINESS: We need to discuss another set of barons.  As we gain more understanding of human nature, we are hardly surprised at the massive scandals of 2002, beginning with Enron Corporation.

These barons have over the years manipulated members of their boards of directors, convincing (actually, bribing) them to look the other way while they fattened their pay packets beyond belief.  The rip-roaring economy of the 1990s provided cover as the scam took off.

We ordinary blokes were distracted, watching our wealth increase during that decade.  But this was small beer.

Our studies of human nature have left us amazed at what people will do when they believe they can get away with it.  It’s nothing more than the old hand-in-the-cookie-jar, writ much, much larger and far more devastating.

How could they get away with this financial skullduggery?  They deceived their shareholders in much the same way that high public officials deceived us.  Not only this; because about half of us are also shareholders in companies, that half is being ripped twice.

Several robber barons are in the slammer or heading that way.  This leaves open the question: When are the citizens going to do the same to the power-grabbing big thieves in Washington?

FAANG means Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google.  Now, over the past 15 or so years these giant companies have done a lot of good for peasants like us.  However, over that period of time these multi-billion-dollar goliaths have sent lobbyists to shower their money on congressmen in exchange for favorable treatment in the marketplace.

So today their detectives are spotting high-tech entrepreneurs just starting up.  They buy them long before they can build up to where they would be competitors, and in this way their oligopoly is preserved and they can go on making megabucks.  (Not only this; they make addicts our of young users.)

THE NEWS MEDIA: This section discusses recent media.  To see how this came about please see PG5.

Because television executives control coverage, they exert personal power over the personal power seekers.  In today’s personality politics maximum exposure on TV is indispensable.  (We think streaming and other social media are causing a reduction, but we have not seen any studies that shows this.)

Therefore in 1997 the central government made a gift of a large part of the new broadband spectrum to these executives and their companies.  The spectrum properly belongs to the public.

Had this been auctioned, the take would have been something like $30 billion.  This one was probably in the bag going in, but TV companies sent their lobbyists over to the Congress with $7.6 million just to be sure.

Reed Hundt, chair of the Federal Communications Commission: “It’s bad enough that broadcasters are being given both digital and analogue channels in perpetuity, without having to pay money or in-kind.  Worse is that there have been no major televised discussions of the issue. ——– why wasn’t their story about TV covered on TV?”

This was an important omission.  Sometimes it goes the other way, and President Bush (Economist 2/2005) wanted to be heard on this (quoted).  “I expect my cabinet secretaries to make sure that practice doesn’t go forward.  There needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press.”

The writer continued: “The GAO (government accounting office) found that, ———-.  ——— departments or agencies created fake news footage, to be slotted into local news broadcasts, with actors playing reporters and ‘suggested introductions’ for (real) anchors to read.”

Where can a bloke find some truth?  Alterman and Greene: “Should any prominent individual ——– risk raising his voice ——- president said ‘black’ to describe ‘white,’ he could expect to witness an immediate partisan character attack echoing thru a dizzying array of media outlets: in print, on network and cable TV, on talk radio, and on the Internet.”

As we showed in Pocket Gofer 11 and above, just shoot the messenger.  What if a non-prominent bloke wanted to squawk?  The media would ignore him/her as they continue to concentrate on the big and powerful personalities.

We thought about this dependence on the tube.  What business would lawmakers in a democracy have, doing all that face time on the screen?

By August 2006 even ordinary blokes among the citizens began to smell something.  Media executives realized that citizens were seeing thru the smoke-and-mirrors, so they had better print and air some truth.

Actually the first shot was British weapons expert David Kelly.  From him came a story in 2003 casting doubt on the government’s plans for invading Iraq.  The reaction was so fierce that the poor man committed suicide.

That fall top editors of the NY Times and Los Angeles Times were targets of the administration’s wrath for publishing state secrets.  And two Danish journalists will stand trial for reporting that their government knew there were no banned weapons in Iraq.

Television is for speaking and entertainment, not listening.  In a democracy lawmakers’ most important jobs are to listen to citizens’ ideas and criticisms (PG20), and then help  them act on those.

Most experts and folks who have thought about it believe that TV is a failed political news medium.  The reality is that it is a barrier to effective expression, reducing potentially serious discussion to sound bites and trivial observations dressed up to appear profound.

The problem comes down to the taboo on dead air time; practically all viewers would key the remote if the constant split-second stream of sound, color, and action were stopped, even for a couple of seconds.  No candidate can respond intelligently to a serious question about government (even if he/she wanted to do so) without some time to reflect on it.

Today we have new media: blogs, YouTube, talk radio, the Internet, hyperlinks, citizen reporters, etc.  Practically anyone with a computer and access to the ‘Net can start his/her own news medium.

These developments provide new opportunities for any citizen who is curious enough to sort thru the trash to learn about what the government is really doing.  In Pocket Gofers 19 and 20 we demonstrate the value of getting together and discussing issues in order to get at the truth.  Maybe these new media will bring us closer together in the interest of good government.

A book written by John Kasich, the republican governor of Ohio ————.  The new work: Two Paths: America Divided or United, reflects Mr. Kasich’s image as a folksy blue-collar conservative with a conscience.  It could be summarized in a single, faith-tinged injunction: “Love your Neighbor.” 

The Economist 4/2017: “Alas, Two Paths matters even more because it fails in its stated aim: to show how America can be united.”  Rats. Our hand just sprang up.  There is but one way: an intensely shared interest in good government. 

ABOVE THE LAW

Confucius believed in the Rule of Man.  In ancient China the Emperor was considered the Son of Heaven; he had a direct pipeline to that wonderful place.

Lots of personal power in this character, biggest country in the world and all that.  With a different concubine each night of the year it must have been quite a life.

This has to be the ultimate in personal power seeking.  Except that it was not sought.

What determined who got the job was bloodline.  However, today bloodline is fading, so there is a whole lot of seeking going on.

In December 1990 PBS aired a special documentary by Bill Moyers.  His conclusion: “Numerous impeachable offenses were committed by our highest public officials, their crimes have gone unpunished, and more of the same can be expected if nothing further is done.”

Agreed.  Why did not congress get tough with these, just as they have with the Keating scandal, big business misbehavior, and several other issues?  One logical answer is that some of them were involved in the cover-up.

Richard Goodwin, a former aide to presidents Kennedy and Johnson, in the Los Angeles Times: “—– this episode will be recorded as a collapse — hopefully transient — in the process of democracy.  And for a Congress that allowed it, there will be a place in the annals of American shame.  They will not only have betrayed their oath to the Constitution, but their most high and solemn duty to the people who entrusted them with office.”

Lots of high-placed power seekers got apparently illegally involved in Iran-Contra on Reagan’s watch.  Later, elder President Bush pardoned all of them, saying it was ” —– the honorable thing to do.”  Washington uses a new definition of honor.

James Madison: “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow.”

It is not difficult to see what will happen in this situation.  Lawyers and their cronies in the congress are the only ones who can make even a shred of sense of the law.  Therefore they use the law as a springboard to personal power and wealth by forcing us to depend on them.

They behave just like Madison said they would.  Makes it easy to keep citizens in the dark so they are less likely to make waves.

The reality is we are paying for a performance that we don’t understand, and the price of admission keeps increasing.  And with no end in sight.

And please, Ron, George, Bill, George, Barack, Donald and Dick, don’t give us this “executive privilege” baloney.  You were not executives, rather nothing more or less than hired hands, elected servants of the people.  Special privileges are for royalty and dictators only (and others, but only if they earn them).

Richard Nixon tried some dirty tricks, but the news media of the time helped us punish him.  However, it looks like we didn’t learn the Watergate lesson well enough: we’re in charge here, so shape up or ship out!

The president is commander-in-chief of the world’s strongest fighting force.  He is therefore likely to be preoccupied with personal power, so he will resent the Constitution’s checks and balances that restrain him from the exercise of all that power.

Let’s have a look at the 10th amendment to the Constitution: “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.”

This clearly places power in the states and communities of our fair land.  This amendment provides for bottom-up democracy.  See Pocket Gofer 4.

Now we can see the true nature of the incredible and wholesale violation of the Constitution that has been perpetrated by and is still being perpetrated by Washington.  If you please, insiders, show us where the Constitution provides for central government involvement in public welfare, public housing, a huge agricultural bureaucracy, energy, health, education, environment, pensions, pork, etc.

Our forefathers inserted the above amendment for a purpose.  They merely looked across the Atlantic Ocean at the many monstrous governments that had been created by centralization of authority and personal power seeking in Europe.  Each had probably suffered under one of them before he sailed across the big pond while “yearning to breathe free.”

And now, whether we asked for it or not, we got it.  In his grave King George III must be enjoying the last laugh.

If the president is a personal power seeker he will be frustrated from fighting power-seekers in congress.  Rothkopf in his book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Creating makes a towering point.

“—— place the president and those in his office above the law (our emphasis) by placing them beyond the investigative powers of congress.  Either stop this action or trash the Constitution, as it is not worth the parchment it is written on.”  Recently it worked: the house voted to impeach Trump, but the effort to bring him to trial in the senate failed. 

Rule of law — where no one, not even the president, — is above the law.  Seriously, friends, how can a servant ignore the law and get away with it?

But in foreign affairs the way is far more open, even if members of congress are also beavering away at his power in this area.  Therefore he will take the show on the road and make America the world’s globocop.  There aren’t many Emperors around today, so this is the ultimate power trip.  See Pocket Gofer 11.

Elder George Bush did it to Iraq.  In theory it was a UN operation, but all the pundits called it Bush’s war.  In fact, one of them called the apparent defeat of a country exhausted from an eight-year war and whose economy is the size of Kentucky’s a “defining moment” in our history.

We would never make a good pundit.  We have guts, but this is ridiculous!

Kuwait is a tiny, anti-democratic, anti-American, and anti-Semitic country.  And yet one of the pundits had the chutzpah to say that in saving Kuwait we were “—– dealing with our own survival.”  WOW!  We clearly need a media doctor.

Amazingly, no one challenged these goofy words.  Shows how much power these cats wield.

It is refreshing to observe that some of young Bush’s words are being challenged.  We may be seeing some progress, however minimal, toward democracy.

James Barber in The Book of Democracy (1995): “At the original Constitutional Convention, one delegate —– proposal ‘for vesting the power in the president’ to make war.  But no other delegate backed him up, and leading figures took the floor to oppose him.

“James Madison said that ‘executive powers …. do not include the rights of war and peace.’  George Mason opposed ‘giving power of war to the executive because —– not to be trusted with it.’

“—– Patrick Henry forcefully —–: ‘Your president could easily become king ….’

“During almost every one of the 75 years since the end of WWII presidents have ordered American soldiers into battle somewhere …..”

George Will (11/2007 column): “While legislators try to leash a president ——— the Constitution — is being ignored by them.  They are derelict in their sworn duty to uphold it.

“Regarding the most momentous thing government does, make war, the constitutional system of checks and balances is broken.”  The congress knew this, but it caved anyway.

“Democrats were supine when President Clinton launched a sustained air war against Serbia without congressional authorization.  Under the Constitution only the congress has authority to declare war.

Surveys revealed that in 1990 over half of the citizens of the USA were against the use of force in Iraq.  Blood for oil didn’t make sense to these people.

Never mind what we wanted.  The pundits were hurting for a fight to bolster their macho credentials, and Bush needed a boost in his popularity.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are very serious crimes.  Bill Clinton got clean away perjuring himself over the Lewinsky affair.  Dick Cheney convinced President Bush to bypass any debate while making questionable decisions.

Clinton was drafted in July 1969, refused, and later enlisted in the Army reserve but did not report for duty.  He stood for congress as a fugitive from justice under Public Law 90-40.  President Carter pardoned him in 1977.

Economist 3/2008: “—- legal system is out of control — an unstoppable clanking machine that has lost any ability to ‘draw the line’ or respect ‘common sense.’  The combination of legalism and Puritanism invariably produce the same dismal results.

“It creates expensive government bureaucracies that seize on any excuse ——– to extend their powers to boss people about or spy on them.  It throws up swivel-eyed zealots who pursue their manias with little sense of proportion or decency.

This sickness brings to mind Rose Wilder Lane’s book The Discovery of Freedom.  In this 1943 book she rails against men who produce being bossed around by men who “produce nothing.”  In this she referred to government bureaucrats.

Neither the warriors nor the pundits look forward to being put out to pasture.  We think a steady diet of grass will tone down some of their excess testosterone, outmoded Rambo-talk, and saber rattling.

We summarize this section with Lapham’s help.  “What the government grasps, the government seeks to keep and hold, and too many of its reformulated purposes fit too nearly with the Bush administration’s wish to set itself above the law.”

ON WEAPONS: In 1987 the United Nations voted 154-1 against weapons in outer space, and 135-1 against developing new and more terrible weapons of mass death and destruction.

No prize for guessing who cast that one negative vote each time.  Maybe the world was trying to tell our government something?

The warriors claim that nuclear weapons enhance our and our allies’ “credibility.”  This is hawgwash.  What they actually do is scare the pants off of top officials of countries who might in the immediate or distant future do something that ticks our government off.

This panic provides a very strong incentive to get their hands on some nukes, so they can defend against that possible attack.  So there went plans for schools, hospitals, roads.

We understand that the pentagon recently asked for another $1.2 trillion of taxpayer money over several years, to prepare for “potential competitors.”  Just how much money is that anyhow, and just what is a “potential competitor?”

Seems like we should know these in detail if we’re paying the bills.  See Pocket Gofer 11.

CONGRESS: The barons and baronesses of congress often consider themselves above the law.  In 1991 a bunch of them owed the house restaurant over $300,000.  Maybe they figured that economists are wrong when they argue that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

After their private bank was called the BCCI — Bank of Corrupt Congressional Incumbents — they voted to shut it down.  The bank refused to release the names of the deadbeats who wrote 8,331 rubber checks.

Journalists tried to get at the names under the Freedom of Information Act, but congress sometimes plans ahead.  In this case members had previously exempted themselves from enforcement.  Clever, eh?

Members wrote an average of 19 bad checks each.  What would happen if one of us did this?  We all know the answer: the law would have us, as we are not above the law.

What happened to those offending members?  Almost nothing.  We did eventually learn their names, but that was about it.

There is a store in a central government building where ordinary citizens like us can browse, but we cannot buy anything.  This closely follows the pattern set by the former Soviet Union’s “nomenklatura,” which means privileged class.  There were stores in Moscow where ordinary citizens were not permitted to buy, even if they had the money.

It is interesting to observe that while President Reagan was fighting communism tooth and nail a small part of that “evil empire” was silently purring along right beneath his nose.

What kind of government is it that:

1. Votes itself a pay raise in a midnight session to fake out journalists and without consulting taxpayers who must finance it?
2. Is solely responsible for punishing misdeeds by its own members?
3. Passes laws that bind everyone except themselves?
4. Has no respect for fiscal discipline, plays fast and loose with taxpayers’ money but expects its own private bank to stay afloat while they abuse it?
5. Accepts great gobs of special interest loot while knowing that this will cause laws to be passed against the interests of the citizens whom they have sworn to represent?
6. Continues with business as usual after all of the above was made public?

Now friends, that’s chutzpah.  Brass ones.  Arrogance to the max.

Looks very much like congressman Phil Condit has proved there is no law that binds the high and mighty (Economist 7/2001).  He apparently had an affair going with young Chandra Levy when she was murdered.

“One investigator described Mr. Condit’s answers as ‘Clintonesque.’  ——.  But it is a perfect Washington story in a more profound way: because of what it reveals about the way the city works.

“It demonstrates the casual hubris (read “brass ones”) of the powerful, and also shows what extraordinary methods ordinary people have to adopt if they are to combat the dissimulation (read “squirming”) of an insider.”  Doubters might check in with Ms. Levy’s parents.

True to a tradition that probably began in 1969 with Ted Kennedy and Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquidick, the whole thing was buried as a scandal-hungry public zeroed in on the next juicy caper.  Which fact makes the attitudes of the high and mighty nonetheless outrageous.

True to the Clinton legacy, Condit fooled his own staff into lying on his behalf.  “Who knows how many congressmen have enjoyed flings with their interns and then lied about it to ‘protect their families?’  Bill Clinton not only lied about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; he used the White House spin machine to discredit people who tried to tell the truth.”

The issue had juice, so it waxed hot for longer than usual.  Therefore Condit hired a team of lawyers and spin-doctors to hog time and space in the news media, so that any results of investigative reporting had no opportunity to see the light of day.

We can see the trend, and it looks very much like the elites have accomplished their goal: they no longer care what we think, as they believe we cannot touch them.  The next logical step is to set up a police state.

The nagging question is how much longer are we going to let these clods get away with this malarkey (apparently including murder). Stay tuned.

LOBBYISTS: Today there are something like 80,000 lobbyists (about half of them active).  That is a lot of axes being ground, and the whole corrupt show is unconstitutional.

They play what is called a “zero-sum game.”  This means each is going after a bigger slice of a pie which has practically stopped growing.

Their activities don’t create new wealth, and they don’t contribute anything to economic growth.  Free and open competition in the private sector does that.  Rather, they only transfer existing wealth into their own pockets and congresspersons’ re-election campaigns.

We wish these highly developed talents could be put to work for the economy, doing like millions of honest citizens do every day, helping to make the economy grow and increase people’s living standards.

A PLACE FOR THE CITIZEN? The reality is that all public employees are parasites.  They feed off the fat of the land: private wealth.

This argues forcefully for small government everywhere.  See Pocket Gofer 15.

By their nature parasites feed and multiply until ultimately they kill their host and themselves as well.  As we think about this we logically conclude that if government grows large enough …..

Actually, we don’t want to think about this.  But someone had better think about it, so we will anyway.

Whenever any pundit or government official gets in front of a microphone (preferably a bunch of them) or TV camera, there is an opportunity to project personal power.  When ideas and active debate become irrelevant it is perceptions, however empty, which leap into the breach.

The pundits know this, and they are accountable to no one.  Without someone or something to restrain them they could tell us the earth is flat and get away with it.

Not only do we have gridlock in Washington.  All this Big Government, money, and personal power mean that institutions and bureaucracies cannot, practically speaking, be eliminated or significantly changed.

If this were to be done personal power relationships and turf agreements of long standing would be upset.  Therefore there is no place for dissent in today’s Washington.  But friends, dissent encouraged thru citizen debate is what established and built this nation.

In 1918 former President Teddy Roosevelt disagreed with President Wilson’s theory: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Try to tell that to the current version.  Well, ——– damn!  That’s what we are doing.

A citizen’s basic human rights are inherent in him/her.  No government can take them away.  However, if said citizen chooses not to exercise his rights and accept responsibility for his actions it is open season for BIG GOVERNMENT.

At this point the Trumpian ego shines forth (The Economist 2/2018): “—–he signed executive order 13818.

“ ——- targets officials in any foreign entity whose members have engaged in ‘serious’ human-rights abuse or corruption.  The original law targets ‘gross’ violations of internationally recognized human rights, a higher standard. 

“The law of 2016 also explicitly reserves its protections for whistle-blowers working to expose law-breaking officials, or campaigners for human rights.  EO13818 scraps that requirement. 

“Most dramatically, the order finds that human-rights abuses and corruption have reached such a pitch that they constitute ‘an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States.’ 

“That is legalese about a standing national emergency that adds the full force of a second sanctions law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to create ‘an incredibly powerful global tool’ to impose financial sanctions and visa bans, ———.”  We have researched and written about egomaniacs, but this must be a record low.

LETTING IDEAS SEEK AND HOLD POWER

Admiral Hyman Rickover, inventor of the Polaris nuclear submarine, was considered by many to be a genius.  He said “Great minds discuss ideas; medium minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

At the start of this pocket gofer we promised to offer an idea about ideas.  Having got some important insights into the problems associated with personal power seeking, let’s see what we can do about a truly sad situation.

The idea we want to share is that power should be placed in ideas and policies and programs evolving from good ideas, rather than in people.  We have seen the devastation caused by concentration of personal power in government.  Let’s disperse power by linking it to good ideas.  While hoping for pardon  from The Economist (10/18) we quote at length.

ON DEMAND FOR HIGH AND SERIOUS THINKING

“In his essays on ‘Culture and Anarchy,’ Matthew Arnold —— only thing which could prevent industrial ——into warring tribes was high culture.  ——- popularizing the ‘best that has been thought and known in the world’ —— encouraging everyone, ——- to live together in an ‘atmosphere of sweetness and light.’

“Melvyn Bragg ———-.  Every Thursday for the past 20 years he has—— ‘In Our Time’ on BBC radio 4 that consists of high-minded conversations with three academics.  ————–.  There are the classic high cultural subjects, —— but also plenty of the best that is being thought by scientists and mathematicians as well.

“Lord Bragg was a working class boy —– thanks —— education.  ————.  ———-.  He read (This is British English for “studied.”) history at ——- Oxford, ———-.  He enjoyed a glorious career at a glorious time for British broadcasting.  His ‘South Bank Show’ broke new ground by profiling the likes of Eric Clapton as well as high cultural icons. 

“But the program went from strength to strength.  Two million people now listen to the live broadcast, and another 300,000-400,000 listen to the repeat.  Another 3m people in 48 countries make it the BBC’s most downloaded weekly podcast.  The audience ranges from academics to workers on oil rigs.  ‘I have been broadcasting for 56 years,’ says Lord Bragg, ‘and have never had such a warm and widespread response to a program.’

“Universities put on fatuous courses, such as cultural studies, in an attempt to remain relevant.   The success of ‘In Our Time’ demonstrates how foolish this is.  Appetite for knowledge is spread widely thruout society (our emphasis).  There is nothing inegalitarian about catering to this curiosity, just as there is nothing egalitarian about doling out dumbed-down drivel.” 

HO!!  This passage deserves banner headlines in every media vehicle everywhere. It also reminds us that there are better things to think about than political outrage and internet memes. 

We need not agonize over where good ideas will be discovered.  They will come from us.  See Pocket Gofer 4.

We know that personal power lies in money because it enables its possessor to manipulate or destroy people.  We learned from Alexander Hamilton that it is human nature for persons to seek power and therefore money, and to use these to gain unearned privilege and to abuse other folks.

The question that we are raising here is what would happen to these people if we organized our efforts as citizens around a policy that placed political power in ideas?  We suspect that they would be unhappy, but that is their problem.

Hamilton recognized that otherwise good men can be and frequently are subject to temptation when placed in positions where power is at hand.  However, if power lies in ideas and policies generated and discussed by citizens, government officials will not hold personal power.  There would none to seek.  Friends, this is bottom-up government; this is democracy.

The occupants of these positions would do the job in the role of public servants.  Their job would be to help us put policies that we decide on after discussion and debate into practice, or to make policy based directly on ideas that enjoy our favor.

As public servants they would not only behave like servants, but they would be open to constructive criticism of ideas and policies, from wherever it may come among the citizens (PG3).  We believe that the collective wisdom of the people in a democracy when utilized through constructive criticism is always superior to that of the few, however brilliant.

Public officials must be open.  They would have to go beyond this and actively seek out our opinions on every important issue.

If they did not they would not be doing their job.  How can they do what we want of them if they don’t know our druthers in detail?

Now we see that in order to operate a democracy we need an open society (PG5).  No more government officials keeping secrets from us; no more treating us like mushrooms.

We need to make a distinction between collective wisdom and conventional wisdom.  The latter is deeply entrenched in Washington today.

It has gradually become conventional due to undisturbed longevity.  That is how wisdom  becomes conventional.

But by then it is no longer wisdom, because the people who feed on it like things just as they are while the rest of society changes.  So there will be no progress until it is disturbed by some kind of outside force.  This force must have its grassroots deep within the collective wisdom of the citizens, well outside Washington.

Not just Washington.  In March 2004 the British government was involved in a radical overhaul of the nation’s messed-up constitution.

Rotsaruck.  “The government’s reluctance to countenance any dilution of its powers shines thru its constitutional dealings.”

We can bet our bippy that no insider force is going to remake the American government.  When he was vice-president, Al Gore wrote a book called Reinventing Government, which became a bestseller.  Then “Saint G e OR g E” armed himself to his pearly-whites, grabbed a copy and mounted a frontal attack on the dragon.

HAIEEE—–YAH!!  As far as we can make out, the dragon didn’t notice.

No proof, but we have difficulty avoiding the suspicion that the bestseller rating was purchased or assumed.  We want our pocket gofers to become best sellers.  But we don’t have that kind of money and influence, so we’ll have to get it done the old fashioned way: with a little help from our friends.

WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN: Washington insiders believe that money can buy anything.  They are learning that there is one thing money can’t buy: love.  

George Washington treasured the love of his countrymen.  Poor Bill Clinton will never enjoy this treasure because it can’t be obtained through telling citizens what they want to hear and giving them money.  “Money Can’t Buy Me Love” goes the popular song by the Beatles.

This isn’t even good parenting practice for kids.  And giving us back our own money yet!

We anticipate a coming battle between conventional and collective wisdom.  With any luck, whenever this comes we will have retained enough of a democracy in our society to avoid violence, in spite of the presence of so many guns.

In fact, luck will not be enough.  We absolutely must avoid violence, even demonstrations which could get out of control.  (They accomplish little anyhow.  That started by George Floyd’s murder just might change this.)

Ballots not bullets, friends.  If we get violent we will play directly into the hands of the establishment.

As soon as the elitists see what is going on they will make great efforts to get us to turn violent.  They have more and bigger guns than we do.

This one must be nonviolent or we may lose all.  Ben Franklin in 1787: “We must hang together, or surely we shall hang separately.”

The reality today is that even though the boat in Washington might get bigger and bigger it can never support all the parasites that climb aboard.  This means it will sink lower and lower, until the sides are right next to the water.

At that point we will have a crisis, and an outside nonviolent force could sink it and build something else in its place.  In this way human nature enables humanity to renew itself.

The regime that fills the resulting vacuum could be a new and tougher tyranny, an openly oppressive regime instead of the secret one under which we suffer today.

That would be far worse.  If we lost control this will certainly be the result.

On the other hand it could become a new step forward toward democracy.  We have the technology to make it work in the coming open society (see PG’s 20 and 21).  What we need is a guiding light that points the way to good government.

The pocket gofers are designed to provide this beacon.  We should put one in every pocket,  purse and mobile phone, discuss the principles and ideas contained in them and debate their merits.

In this way each community can improve on the ideas and adapt them to its unique needs.  This is the way to build bottom-up, participative democracy.

Now we see why we don’t want politicians in the White House and in governors’ jobs.  We do want public-spirited citizens in public office.

One more from Lapham’s fertile mind: “To the extent that a democratic society gives to its citizens the chance to speak in their own voice and listens to what they have to say, it gives itself the chance not only of discovering its multiple glories and triumphs but also of surviving its multiple follies and crimes.”  Note Lapham’s reference to both sides of human nature.

ON IDEAS: Let’s have a look at ideas.  They are all around us, so why have a look at what we already know about?  We agree that ideas are everywhere, so the law of supply and demand dictates that each one cannot be worth much.

Correct, but we should have said let’s have a look at good ideas.  These are not all around us; in fact they are rare.

The reason for having a long look is to discover how we can separate the good ideas from the not so good and the bad.  This isn’t easy.

An idea can become a good one only by surviving extensive and constructive criticism.  When motivated by strong public-spirited feelings, criticism can build power into a good idea and also discourage a poor one from further consideration.  PG20 elaborates.

Therefore the message from the critic to the speaker is “Your idea has a couple of good points —–.  I think it is weak here —–.  But I also think that even if this idea turns out to be not a good one you are a good citizen and a conscientious contributor to good government.”

This approach separates the idea/proposal from the person.  Therefore if it should lose out he/she will not feel hurt or discouraged.  He will be motivated to contribute another one soon IF he is convinced that his original idea was given an adequate hearing.

Here is where collective wisdom comes into play.  Individual citizens among us will generate ideas and try them out on others who they know are concerned citizens.  The good ones will gather strength and find their way into community policy and law.

Some will be passed on to larger groups and government agencies for further discussion and criticism.  The survivors will be subjected to the collective wisdom of all citizens at local, state, and finally national levels as deemed appropriate by citizens (Tenth Amendment).

Then they will be sent on for process into law.  This is how participative democracy works.

These people will not be bothered with special interest pleadings for unearned special treatment; we will jolly well see to that.  We can control a small government in Washington and in state houses, but not today’s Frankenstein.

Elected officials will run for re-election based on their records of true public service.  Clever image merchandising and spin doctoring thru television and social media will be history.

As Thomas Jefferson (roughly) said during his inaugural address as president: “When you citizens find someone else who can do a better job, I will gladly step down.”  Elder George Bush said, “I will do anything necessary to get re-elected.”  Public-spirited citizens are not career politicians.

Mr. Bush obviously did that, but we showed him the door anyway.  Politicians are just starting to realize that they can’t b-s all the troops all the time.

We citizens will actively participate in creating ideas that may eventually become the policies and laws by which we govern ourselves.  Because people support what they help to create we will not feel oppressed by what we put forth.

This means our lawless society will also be history.  And with it crooked cops.

It also means that our elected and appointed officials must be open to ideas and criticisms coming from outside government.  Our representatives will know that if they are not open we will pitch them out on their self-serving keesters.  We will hold their feet to the fire.

Wait a minute.  If everyone participates, just exactly what and who is “outside government?”

TIME AND PRIORITIES: In 1788 many citizens carried a copy of the proposed new Constitution of the United States of America in their pockets.  Frequent reference to it helped guide animated debates on its merits as thousands of citizens considered the impact of this document on their future.

To stretch a point, we might call it the original pocket gofer.

Friends, this will take a bit of time out of each of our busy lives.  Wherever will we find it?  Got the job (maybe two of these), spouse, kids, church, Rotary, soccer coaching, night classes, etc.

Time is a matter of priorities.  If we dislike being deceived and ripped off strongly enough, we will make time available.

We have learned the hard way that voting every two years and paying taxes is not enough.  If all of us participate each of us need not take much time.

The cold and sobering fact is if we don’t we will get exactly what we are today indirectly asking for: a huge, corrupt, inefficient, and gridlocked government liberally stocked with self-serving parasites and not a few thieves.

If we could put a number on the time each week we spend fighting bloated and oppressive government at all levels we might find it is greater than the time we would spend supporting participative democracy.

And we would be creating and building it.  A stimulating hobby is always fun.  Contributing to good government also smooths the path for our children and their children (PG6).

In 1788 Hamilton, Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers over the signature “Publius.”  Their intent was to speak for the citizens.  The papers were published in several big city newspapers in an attempt to get citizens of the crucial state of New York to ratify the new Constitution.

These men were promoting a brand new idea that is contained in the Constitution: individual freedom from oppression, provided the citizens were willing to work for it.  They knew that freedom is not free.  “O-er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”  Composer Francis Scott Key of “The Star-spangled Banner” knew that no country can be free without bravery.

History tells us that they sold the idea.  A major reason why they were able to sell it was that the Constitution indirectly specified that power must lie in ideas and not in personal power seeking people.  The document is designed to restrain this tendency, which the authors knew lies deep in human nature.

CONCLUSION

Peggy Noonan was a speechwriter for Reagan, and was a Washington seer for years afterward.  In October 2006 she provided a fitting introduction to this section.

“— the republican elite, ——–.  —- sense, in their tough little guts, that the heroic age of the American presidency is, for now, over.  No president is going to come along and save us, and Congress isn’t going to save us.  Events will cause a reckoning, and then we’ll save ourselves.  And in this we will refind our greatness.” 

We believe that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” does not connect.  The Economist(1/2018)heartily agreed.

“Washington is all Trump all of the time.  That is bad for America.  ——- leader of the free world is portrayed as a monstrously selfish toddler-emperor seen by his own staff as unfit for

office.  Hang on; there’s more.

“Wolff in the White House,” (Economist): Review of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Little Brown, publisher.

“—— portrayal of the 45^th president as an irascible, ‘semi-literate’ man-child, with ‘no ability to plan and org and pay attention and switch focus.’

“Mr. Wolff’s muckraking skills, cattiness, cynicism and feel for human weakness, esp among the rich and famous, make him well qualified for the job.  His depiction of the jealousies between Mr. Trump’s advisers is merciless. 

“His understanding of Mr. Trump’s needy relationship with the media, whose praise and attention he craves even as he rages against them, is acute.”  We are hoping that, sooner or later, the media’s true colors get aired.  Perhaps above all else, this country needs a free press.  These remarks more than amplify our crucial need for a free press as shown in PG5.

“The danger of the Trump character obsession is that it distracts from deeper changes in America’s system of government.  America is being damaged by his presidency.  ——— the subtext is so often the desire for his early removal from office.”  Make America great again?  We must look elsewhere.

Friends, we are looking at a sale today that is just as big, and it involves a lot more people than were around in 1788.  The question which we feel we must ask is, are we up to it?

Do we have the right stuff?  As the entire population of what was once the greatest nation in the world, can we confront this colossal challenge?  Ms. Noonan believes we can.

Our children, grandchildren, and generations to come afterward are/will be very curious about our answer.

But, why us?  This is what three or four generations of us in the past have asked.  How they answered it is only too painfully obvious today.

They refused to get their hands dirty by getting involved in politics.  Therefore they got precisely what they asked for.  Ideas debated among citizens are the guts of democracy.

Minds may differ. But if the difference is clearly stated and understood to be in principle, hearts will remain united.

In his 1838 book The American Democrat James Fenimore Cooper: “The public has a right to be treated with candor.  Without this manly and truly republican quality … the institutions are converted into a stupendous fraud.”  See PG5.

During the French Revolution a man rushed to the stage during a meeting and grabbed control of it to shout: “I would rather my corpse should serve as the throne of an ambitious man than that by my silence I should become the accomplice of his crimes!”

Was he a nut case?  Or a brave man?  :Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

There has been progress since then, so we are luckier than that man.  That is, we can put our courage in our pockets and pull it out frequently for all to see and appreciate.

While singing the last line of our national anthem, we realize once again that the land of the free cannot exist without the brave.

“The love of power can be overcome by the power of love (Rev. Bill Peters)”.

This gofer is a good idea seeking power in a pocket.

—— PUBLIUS II

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO, DISCUSS, CRITICIZE,

AND ACT ON:

PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE USA

PG 11 – ON THE US AS A WORLD CITIZEN

PG 12 – ON THE UN AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 17 – ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY