POCKET GOFER 16
Download Pocket Gofer 16 here.
ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
- A CITIZEN’S CURIOSITY ABOUT DEMOCRACY
- HOW WASHINGTON MIGHT OPERATE
- SOME VAGUE BUT IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS AND HOW GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TWIST THEM TO SUIT THEIR PURPOSE
- THE REALITY IN WASHINGTON
- SOME BRIEF THOUGHTS ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY
It seems to us like our once-great nation has come to a fork in the road. This means we can’t continue as we have, and we reckon that’s good because so many of us are unhappy with the current state of the union.
One fork leads to a police state. We can see this one hovering on the horizon as we watch the many new laws and regulations passed, the many new prisons built, the tremendous push for a crackdown on crime, and now we have the threat of terrorism.
If we over-emphasize law and order that is what we would end up with. This situation would suit the elites in the central government just fine. Today’s Russia springs to mind.
The other fork leads to a genuine democracy. We make no apology for favoring this route and the destiny that lies at the end, however uncertain from today’s perspective.
A CITIZEN’S CURIOSITY ABOUT DEMOCRACY
Folks these days surely are upset about our government in Washington. In fact, that may understate the case.
Decades ago in school we learned a lot about democracy and how wonderful it is. Our politicians continue to preach the virtues of democracy, saying that we must band together and defend it at all costs (and they do mean all costs).
So, why are so many of us upset? We thought about this inconsistency and became confused.
We decided not to stop with simple bitching about our government in Washington, and to dig into democracy in an attempt to resolve the inconsistency. If we don’t really have a democracy why do our politicians keep working so hard to convince us to defend it against a laundry list of external threats and internal dissenters? And why do the news media slavishly follow the preachings of the politicians?
AWAY BACK THEN: “For thousands of years, human beings used their energies in unsuccessful efforts to get wretched shelter and meager food. Then on one small part of the earth, a few men use their energies so effectively that three generations created a completely new world.” This curious statement came from Rose Wilder Lane’s book The Discovery of Freedom.
Her little book is one of the toughest we have come across. In it Ms. Lane described the Revolutionary War as the third attempt by man to break free.
The first two were by Moses and the Prophet Mohammad, respectively. (To be fair we should probably include some East Asian seers such as Confucius and the Buddha.)
The third attempt to free men’s energies coincided with the Industrial Revolution. Hence the creation of a completely new world.
In 1774 Thomas Jefferson wrote about the many abuses of power in England. Due to repeated wars the government had no money, and so King George III leaned on our ancestors in his American colonies to pay backbreaking taxes.
In Pocket Gofer 13 we mentioned elder President Bush’s caper in Panama. He sent the army to invade that sovereign nation and kidnap its top leader, Antonio Noriega, on suspicion of drug activity.
A short while later the American government did almost the same thing again. Agents went to Mexico and kidnapped a doctor who was wanted for questioning in the 1985 murder of US Drug Enforcement agent Enrique Camarena. The government of Mexico was thoroly bent, and justifiably so.
In both of these cases the American government probably thought that “might makes right.” Is this democracy?
Our ancestors had it done to us by King George III when America was a tiny and weak nation like Panama. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Washington (among others) didn’t like it. A colonist killed a British loyal subject. King George decreed that his trial must be in England.
Did it occur to the young Bush administration that, now that we are the big guy, these little guys might feel the same way? Isn’t the Golden Rule a part of democracy?
As we got to digging into democracy we found ourselves joining the Thomas Jefferson Fan Club. ” —– that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate (our emphasis), errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
Friends, truth always lurks in the shadows. This fact scares the stuffing out of liars and thieves. Does this mean that Washington is full of paranoid thieves? Stay tuned.
We like this one too: “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” Is Jefferson describing today’s Washington? Today a politician tells the truth only when he calls another politician a liar.
The Revolutionary War of 1776-83 was not just to show King George III the door. It was about principles.
Our ancestors had an idea that they called democracy. They wanted to try it out in the New World.
They were extremely lucky, in that once the king was gone they had a blank political slate to write on. Today that slate is horribly cluttered with tons of rules and regulations, so we must remove them before we can build a democracy. We can do this without violence. In truth, such is the strength of our top-down government this may be the only way. See Pocket Gofer 4.
Thomas Paine published a book called The Rights of Man in 1792. The British aristocracy immediately flew into a tumultuous tizzy, stopped publication of the book and put him on trial for sedition. (A friend tipped him off and he slipped across the English Channel into France.)
Rose Wilder Lane: “Thomas Paine was worth more than the whole army, Washington said ——-. From first to last, he spoke the truth as he knew it. His Rights of Man utterly demolished the British darling, that famous orator and sleek crook, Burke; the hangman burned the book and the King’s justices sentenced Thomas Paine to fine and imprisonment; and the book sold more than a hundred thousand copies in the British Isles.” Tyrants often shoot the messenger and burn the books, but when there is a need the message is still there.
The pen is mightier than the sword. This cat was a courageous genius. He was also a man of the times, because almost immediately after our revolution came the French one.
Paine claimed as “natural rights” those of the mind. They guide individual behavior in the wild. (Paine’s pamphlet called “Common Sense,” published in 1776, caused Washington to make the above comment.) See our Common Sense II.
However, because people need other people a citizen is a member of a community. Therefore he/she willingly gives up some natural rights in favor of civil rights.
This means he can do what he pleases so long as his actions do not harm the rights of another. When focused through good leadership these rights help the community to function to nearly everyone’s satisfaction.
Paine also argued that ordinary citizens could understand their interests and issues relating to them. If this were true in 1792, surely it is true today when everyone has at least some education and even those without much have street smarts.
He had seen the horrors of Big Government in Europe, so some of his writings were aimed straight at this huge target. “Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.” Paine believed that government is a necessary evil.
“—— the few cases ——.” Reminds us of the 10th Amendment to our 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.
With almost no formal education Thomas Paine proved that no one needs to be a high-profile hero or intellectual giant to be a concerned citizen and say and write stuff that stirs people’s brains. This fact encourages us ordinary blokes.
This country was founded on the concepts of individual initiative and self-reliance. We quickly acknowledge that people occasionally make dumb mistakes (we are not free of this scourge). However, when we make one we should reach for our conscience, not our lawyer.
“If we look back to the riots and tumults, which at various times have happened in England, we shall find, that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society, it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not have existed.” It surely seems to us that this paragraph fits today’s government as it did then. Donald Trump springs to mind.
As humans we need to form associations, both civic and political. During most of the 19th century European associations gave commands while those in America were organized to discuss problems, criticize ideas, and recommend solutions for voting by citizens. As Paine indicated, a command society is a fragmented society. Populists today preach “divide and conquer.”
An aristocracy is better at making laws than is a democracy. The big shots wield all the power so they can and do call all the shots. Making a new law to oppress the peasants is simple; just do it. Impunity rules; constitutional rule of law has been obliterated.
Citizens of a democracy sometimes make poor laws. But they make them for their own benefit, and they can correct mistakes. Laws handed down from above may be unsuited to the needs of a particular village, but its citizens have no choice in the matter (PG4).
A DEFINITION: So, friends, just what is democracy? We learned that the answer is not a one-liner, so there are lots of opportunities to distort its meaning.
We would say democracy is the confused cries of the multitudes, which are carefully listened to by their public servants. They then sift thru the chaff in search of wheat and then check back to see if they have it right before helping citizens to act. But this is incomplete.
Anthony Arblaster in his book Democracy: “—– definition of democracy has been revised, adapted, narrowed and diluted to render it compatible with the persisting belief in the necessity of the virtue of rule by elites, with an equally persistent mistrust of ‘the masses,’ and, perhaps most important of all, to render it compatible with the existing political systems of the western world which call themselves ‘democracies.’
“Given this revised definition, it becomes natural to talk about preserving and defending democracy rather than achieving it (our emphasis), for of course it already exists in such fortunate countries as Britain and America.” Simply jack the definition around to suit the present situation.
Mr. Arblaster here exposed an example of “Washingtonspeak.” (See PG19.) We have recently been observing news stories with this in mind. Our conclusion agrees with his argument.
We believe journalists are to blame for not explaining their use of “equal.” This term has two meanings: economic equality and social equality. The first means equality of opportunity and the second means equality of results. The first is bottom-up equality or democracy and the latter is top-down socialism. See PG4.
Lewis Lapham wrote a book called The Wish for Kings in which he provided the following: “—– it means the freedom of mind and the perpetual expansion of the discovery that the world is not oneself. A democracy is about individuals who trust their own judgments, rely on the strength of their own thought, and speak in their own voices. ——-.” We freely amend this observation to include “—- and are heard.”
“People who live for others and not for the opinion of others, who believe that they can forge their energy and their intelligence into the shape of their own destiny ——. People who recognize in other people the worth of their variant theories, tastes, customs, and opinions, ————-.”
Freedom of mind, new discoveries, trust in our judgments, not those of others. The freedom to speak our minds, and respect for the voices of others of different background.
This suggests that in a community we can cooperate with one another even as each of us moves forward toward his/her own unique and freely chosen future. The glue that holds diverse citizens together is a shared interest in the good life that evolves thru working toward good government.
It looks easy on paper, but apparently it is not. Maybe that is why we must really scratch around to find a true democracy in today’s world.
Actually, we did scratch around, and came up empty-handed. It does not exist.
Lapham continued: “Democracy is better understood as a habit of mind than as a system of government, and —– candor is probably the one most necessary to the success of the proposition. The energy —— flows from the capacity of its citizens to speak and think without cant, from their willingness to defend their interest, argue their case, say what they mean.”
“Cant” means insincere, or faking it. This means that Lapham supported Jefferson’s “—– government consists in the art of being honest.” Fake news springs to mind.
This strikes us as a useful guide as we write the pocket gofers. We feel free to chase truth as we see it, free to allow our thoughts to range far and wide.
A citizen would defend his/her interest and argue his case in the nonviolent arena of ideas. He could say what he meant.
This reminds of Vladimir Lenin’s dictum: “First confuse the vocabulary.” Poorly educated citizens often cannot say precisely what they mean, which makes it difficult for them to argue their cases in a democracy.
We are old enough to recall studying American history in grade school. Of course we learned about democracy and the Constitution. The big kicker here is that, shortly after the end of WWII politicians began slowly and sneakily doing what Arblaster discussed above.
A citizen might ask why. The answer is that elite career politicians did not want citizens to know about democracy; with this knowledge they might revolt. This was nothing new: antebellum plantation owners also did not want slaves going to school, and for the same reason. See PGs 3 and 10.
We enjoy freedom to think and write only because Washington doesn’t know about us and what we are doing. We are concerned about the Washington insider elite class.
They are sure to find these writings threatening to their kingdom. Therefore we may be placing ourselves at risk, even as we advocate power in ideas and not in people (PG13).
The colonists of the 1770s also assumed a great risk. But they knew that truth is a strong ally. By writing the pocket gofers we hope to persuade lots of allies to sign aboard. Risky? Sure, but no pain no gain.
So we’ll “gofer” it, and damn the torpedoes! Others before us have done this. Had they not, where would we be today?
Lapham: “Democracy announces its presence by a few fundamental traits of character, among them a reasoned and honest discussion of public issues, the accountability of the governors to the governed, and equal protection under the law.” Note Lapham’s use of bottom-up here: political leaders accountable to their bosses, the citizens.
Referred to above, candor means an open and honest society; see PG5. We believe men and women of sound mind and good intentions can engage in spirited debate without getting ticked off. With gentlemanly and lady-like self-discipline we will be able to keep discussions intellectual as we fight the battles of ideas. (Recent weeks — late May/early June 2020 — violent street activities underscore the desperate need for reason in discussion. President Eisenhower was a believer; see PG18.)
True, there is considerable risk. That is, to engage in sincere debate a person must be capable and willing not only to listen to the other side’s viewpoint, but also to risk having his/her own ideas changed as a result of debate.
He/she must bear constantly in mind that his person is not being criticized; rather it is his idea. He must also bear in mind that having accepted and assimilated a better idea he is a better, stronger citizen (PG13).
We note the emphasis in democracy on the individual as we tap into Lapham once more: “The Constitution was made for the uses of the individual ——–, and the institutions of American government were meant to support the liberties of the people, not the ambitions of the state. It was the law that had to give way to the citizens’ freedom of thought and action, not the citizens’ freedom of thought and action that had to give way to the law.” Here is bottom-up and top-down dramatically illustrated.
Our forefathers made up the Constitution with the intent that it guide preservation of our freedom as individual citizens. It would support the liberties of the people and not the ambitions of politicians, especially career politicians. See PG3.
The men who put it together in 1787 did not tell the country “Here it is, gang; aren’t you proud of what we have accomplished?” That would be top-down and hence not democratic.
Rather, they offered it as a proposal to be cussed and discussed in innumerable community gatherings, with the results sent on to 13 state conventions. At those places it was discussed all over again before each eventually decided to ratify it. “—– that truth is great ——- natural weapons, free argument and debate, —–.”
Hundreds of thousands of citizens examined the proposed constitution in detail, and many spoke out both in favor and against. They carried a copy around in their pockets as an aid to discussion. Many could not read, but that did not stop their participating in debates.
This is where we got the idea of putting a gofer in every pocket and purse. This is democracy.
Does our law today “give way to citizens’ freedom of thought and action?” We need to think about that one.
INDIVIDUALISM: Recently the loss of high-wage manufacturing jobs has acted to reduce the amount of real increase (adjusted for inflation) in the average wage. This is properly a matter for concern.
As democracy focuses on individual rights and responsibilities the wage issue should be the concern of the individual worker and his/her family and not that of the government. This is because no government, however organized (democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, socialist, communist, etc.), can guarantee continuously increasing real wages (including inflation). Each individual interested in advancement should upgrade his/her skills.
However, government does have a role in this issue. That role is no role: get off our backs so we can think freely and improve our skills. See PG15.
We might add that as the primary emphasis in our society moves forward from product manufacturing to information/technology the number of manufacturing jobs will continue to be reduced. Some of the jobs being “exported” are in manufacturing. And some to robots.
We are well advised to ignore what politicians seeking votes tell us on this issue. Work is life, and each of us sure as hell knows that in life there are no guarantees. This is the reality. This is truth.
Bruno Leoni brought up an excellent point (Freedom and the Law): “—– development of science and technology, — and that of legislation — are based respectively on two completely different and even contradictory ideas. ——–. Scientific and technical research needed and still needs individual initiative and individual freedom to allow the conclusions and results reached by individuals, possibly against contrary authority, to prevail. ——-. Where authorities and majorities prevail, as in legislation, individuals must yield, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.”
This partially explains why free individual inquiry gives results that are so much closer to truth than does top-down lawmaking. Here is a reason why Washington favors political actions by, say, environmentalist groups, and instructs the news media to avoid publishing scientific results that contradict these actions.
A good point to bring up is, what happens to the minority in a democracy? Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland, where a Protestant majority trampled on the rights of the Catholic minority for decades.
People are all different, even identical twins in some respects. Therefore in any gathering for deliberating on political issues there will be minorities. How can we avoid a possible replay of the misery of Northern Ireland?
For many issues a minority would not be strongly opposed. Also, their opposition may be such that either they can accept the result or their opposition will be softened after learning that the result preserves their basic human freedoms.
These are guaranteed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. They may even see an opportunity through future debates to persuade the majority to their view of the issue. Not to forget: the minority’s thinking must be heard and understood lest later debates will not occur.
Or, a modification on both sides may accomplish a meeting of the minds. In practice and in a spirit of cooperation instances of really implacable opposition will be few and far between.
We conclude that if the minority was given a voice during the debate and the majority listened, there will be a motivation to accept the result. By truly listening, the majority accepts the possibility that it may be persuaded toward a minority point of view.
This realization also helps the latter to accept the result, once a fair vote has been taken. There is truth in the argument that every good new idea begins with a minority: one concerned and creative citizen. See PG20.
There is a big assumption here. That is, to bring this result off as desired by all we need capable and open-minded leadership exercised by whoever presides over meetings.
Minds are like parachutes; they function only when open. Free and open debate cannot occur without open minds. When minds differ hearts remain united.
We are edging toward a conclusion that democracy is a mentality, and that we need to keep certain principles in our heads if we are to operate one in the right way. (We are the operators; not the government.)
The obvious top-down government strategy is to keep the peasants divided, afraid and confused. In this state they cannot easily organize an uprising.
This is clearly Washington’s strategy as it eggs us on toward greater actions of behalf of group rights and avoidance of responsibility. Lawyers have keen noses for money so we can bet our bippy they jumped on these as soon as they smelled them coming.
The Economist (6/1997) takes us into two emotional examples which illustrate the constant political battle which surrounds this issue. “—– a jury in New Jersey upheld the death penalty for a child abuser who had himself been abused in childhood, rejecting the argument that a man’s boyhood trauma diminishes his responsibility for his behavior as an adult.
“That same day the news was dominated by a deal to transform the regulation of tobacco, parts of which imply that adults are not fully responsible for the decision to smoke. These two incidents, ——- together offer a lesson about the faith in individualism that is the basis for all liberal societies. And the lesson is this: even when individualism seems to triumph, its enemies are regrouping, plotting, attacking on a new front.
“These arguments will never go away; they are too plausible. It is true, after all, that people’s behavior is influenced by surroundings and by childhood; ——- emotions and desires are triggered by chemicals in the brain; —–.
“But none of these obvious truths should be allowed to obscure a less obvious one, much more profound. To identify a cause for someone’s behavior is not the same as identifying an excuse (our emphasis).”
Originating in the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement gathered most black people into a cohesive political group. Its purpose was to demand equal basic rights in society from government, who would respond with top-down laws and regulations.
This happened. But later other people questioned the idea that just by being a member of a group an individual should enjoy unearned economic rights.
The Bill of Rights addresses basic human rights, not economic rights. In the 1960s most Blacks did not enjoy even basic rights, so they quite rightly got organized.
But as the movement gained momentum leaders said why stop here? So they moved into economic and social rights, and thus beyond the Bill of Rights. That was when the questioning began.
By the 1990s the movement had lost momentum as enlightened Blacks chose to pursue self-improvement individually. This opportunity should have been available in the 1960s, but the heritage of slavery died very slowly.
Today’s newly minted “BLACK LIVES MATTER” will stick only if these good citizens pursue success thru individual efforts at self-improvement. We saw black superstar Michael Jordan recommending education as a good place to begin. We agree; see PG10.
Latinos are too diverse to get together as a group and demand economic rights. About their only common ground lies in language, and even this has variations among nationalities.
Their education and poverty are on average lower than those of Blacks. This means the bulk of jobs open to them are situated at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.
These disadvantages apparently bother them hardly at all. Most of them just roll up their sleeves, dig in, and sweat.
Relatively few Latinos are on welfare. They are too busy working and paying taxes.
Michael Berliner and Gary Hull criticized the currently popular diversity movement as misguided: “—– claims that its goal is to extinguish racism and build tolerance of differences. This is a complete sham.
“One cannot teach students that their identity is determined by skin color and expect them to become colorblind. One cannot espouse multiculturalism and expect students to see each other as individual human beings.
“One cannot preach the need for self-esteem while destroying the faculty that makes it possible: reason. One cannot teach collective identity and expect students to have self-esteem.”
Self-esteem is an individual concept. A person can improve it, but only through accomplishment on his/her own initiative. This inner feeling is reinforced through positive feedback coming from others who care about him.
Thomas Paine was an individualist. He made another point, this one about wisdom. “Whatever wisdom constituently is, it is like a seedless plant; it may be reared when it appears, but it cannot be voluntarily produced.
“There is always a sufficiency somewhere in the general mass of society for all purposes; but in respect to the parts of society, it is continually changing its place. It rises in one today, in another tomorrow, and has most probably visited in rotation every family of the earth, and again withdrawn.”
Note how democracy fits into this truth. Democracy by its nature gives voice to the people. A thinking lady whose name escapes us: “Never confuse knowledge with wisdom. The former enables one to make a living; the latter enables one to make a life.”
They expect that public officials will regularly come to them for guidance; this is the nature of government by the people and for the people. They perceive these officials as their servants.
Servants everywhere need guidance in order that they can do their assigned jobs in the most effective manner. Within the climate of democracy wisdom bubbles to the surface.
It remains only for officials to make government work better by seeking people out and being receptive to their observations. It is a game of hide-and-seek, with wisdom in individual citizens as the object.
Note the depth of Paine’s insight into human nature in this quote. “There is existing in man, a mass of sense lying in a dormant state, and which, unless something excites it to action, will descend with him, —– to the grave. As it is to the advantage of society that the whole of its faculties should be employed, the construction of government ought to be such as to bring forward, ——- all that extent of capacity which never fails to appear in revolutions.”
Competent leadership in democracy has the potential to bring out the best in citizens without the necessity of revolution (PG17). However, with no experience to guide us, we’re not sure of this one.
Therefore we speculate that if democracy would work over time there would be no need for revolutions. Citizens would bring about steady, orderly changes in their government as their social needs and desires change. There would be no elite class to block change and thus make revolution necessary. Democracy is by its nature a work in progress.
We believe that that “mass of sense lying in a dormant state” is present even in the poor of inner cities. We believe the “something exciting it to action” lies in the bottom-up approach to problem analysis and solution in those areas.
Democracy cannot work without an inherent faith in the goodness of man and woman. See PG4. De Tocqueville saw this in 1830 when he observed America’s “—– superiority of its women.”
How does the popular notion of a “social contract” fit into the theory of democracy? We have run across this term in our readings.
It comes at us as part of an argument that citizens must allow others to rule them and pay taxes in order to live peacefully in an orderly society. David Bergland in Libertarianism in One Lesson: “But a contract requires knowing persons who voluntarily enter an agreement, accepting obligations in exchange for benefits they expect to receive. One essential characteristic of a contract is that one can choose to enter it or not.”
Note our use of emphasis here. It shows us that a “social contract” is not a contract because we have no choice whether to participate. It is top-down and group-oriented. Therefore it is not democracy, because for this to flourish freedom of choice is essential.
This term was invented by elites in government. Benjamin Franklin: “It is of great consequence, —— that we should not depress the virtue and public spirit of our common people, of which they displayed a great deal during the Revolutionary war and which contributed principally to the favorable issue of it.”
He did not think “—– that the elected have any right in any case to narrow the privileges of the electors.” Modern translation: if a public servant gets too uppity we will fire the horse’s patoot.
SOURCES: Paine went far back in history to bring us another insight. He showed that there were and are three sources from which government has arisen. The first is superstition, the second is power, and the third is ” —– the common interest of society, and the common rights of man. The first was a government of priestcraft; the second of conquerors, and the third of reason.”
This observation seems to define human progress over the millenniums of recorded history. Toward the beginning ignorance of surroundings and lack of explanations for tragic events encouraged belief in the supernatural. Priests, shamans, and medicine men filled a real need for insights, which they were believed to possess.
As societies organized into nation-states, power and plunder made up the next logical basis of government. Today, as we look at the world and see the futility of further military adventures (PGs 11 an18) the logic shifts toward reason. See also the essay “Futility of War.”
Paine thought the Age of Reason was at hand in 1792, due probably to his intimate acquaintance with two very significant revolutions that were based on reason and principles. He became understandably excited. Unfortunately he was premature.
The French revolution was stolen almost immediately. The American variety took a lot longer, but it was stolen nonetheless. Doubters need only have a glance at PG19.
Today we see vestiges of village government by superstition in a few parts of Africa. We see far too much government by conquerors: oppression through denial of basic human rights, and even horrible maltreatment of men, women, and children by strongmen. Syria springs to mind.
Friends, we seek to hasten the arrival of the Age of Reason. This is why we find Paine’s writings inspirational.
APPLICATION: Arthur Schopenhauer said, “All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second, it is vigorously opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Alexis de Tocqueville: “He obeys society not because he is inferior to those who direct it, nor because he is incapable of ruling himself, but because union with his fellow seems useful to him and he knows that that union is impossible without a regulating authority.
“Therefore in all matters concerning the duties of citizens toward each other he is subordinate. In all matters that concern himself alone he remains the master; he is free and owes an account of his actions to God alone.”
We would add that he/she is subordinate after the matter has been discussed, he has contributed his thoughts, and a decision has been cast. Note that freedom is not free, in that a man or woman must answer to God or some other spiritual being for his actions as an individual.
He/she must answer to others when his actions may affect their rights as individuals. However, with carefully considered, self-disciplined, and responsible behavior there remains much latitude for actions, such that the actor will accurately perceive himself as a free person.
Friends, we see a paradox of human nature in this. As we citizens learn to discipline ourselves more effectively, so does our personal freedom as individuals increase, also interpersonal trust, and finally the collective morality of society.
As we learn about ourselves we discover that we can discipline ourselves. As this happens we discover that we need fewer laws to restrain our behavior. Unnecessary laws would be replaced by trust and moral suasion.
When the right to enforce the few laws we need is divided among many, it is difficult for one of us to hog more power than is his/her share. Collectively there is great social power according to the wishes of the people. Individually each of us must look straight at our image in the mirror.
In 1830 there were many newspapers to help citizens keep a hard eye on our public servants. Each took great pride in exposing any skullduggery that it could dig up.
Politicians knew this, and generally behaved accordingly. Today’s news media divert our attention away from what is really going on in government.
Intellectual combat may replace the physical variety; De Tocqueville: “In Europe almost all the disorders of society are born around the domestic hearth and not far from the nuptial bed. It is there that men come to feel scorn for natural ties and legitimate pleasures and develop a taste for disorder, restlessness of spirit, and instability of desires.
“Shaken by the tumultuous passions that have often troubled his own house, the European finds it hard to submit to the authority of the state’s legislators. When the American returns from the turmoil of politics to the bosom of the family, he immediately finds a perfect picture of order and peace.”
TIME & MONEY: Sure as a bear does it in the woods we will find some characters who claim they haven’t time to participate in free and open debate in order to make democracy work. A competent leader must make it clear that if we want democracy we will have to devote some time, talent, and effort to its maintenance.
Time is only priorities. If citizens do not devote the requisite time to democracy they will soon find a lack of democracy setting conditions whereby they have less time for preferred activities. They will find themselves devoting more time, money, and frazzled nerves to fighting the system than they would to maintaining democracy in the first place.
Once established, we believe democracy would not take much time. It would take only the necessary commitment to jack it up high enough on our priority list.
Democracy is a mentality. If our mentality is oriented to security and not to risk we shall not fail.
Nor shall we succeed. In this case our unavoidable destiny is to muddle along, rolling with the punches (like it was in the Soviet Union), instead of going for the gusto and coming out of it with the rich rewards of success worn proudly on our chests.
If we fail the prize is still out there, so we will have another go. We cannot persist too long in touting the virtue of persistence.
THE LAW: We recall Tom Paine arguing that citizens can govern themselves without many laws, needing only those few that they themselves offer up, discuss, and vote on. That said, it is puzzling that each year the Congressional Record in Washington runs to somewhere around 7,500 pages of new legislation. This does not include new regulations put down by the executive branch, which in a typical year will run close to 75,000 pages.
Maybe it is not so puzzling after all. See PG15.
It surely seems to us there is room for some improvement. Our legal system is based on British common law, where lawyers and judges frequently depend on decisions made up to centuries ago when arguing and deciding today’s cases.
But history is littered with bad laws made by top-down decrees and not bottom-up thru discussion and debate. This is because Great Britain has had no experience with true democracy.
Paine and Jefferson argued that each generation has the right to make its own laws for their community, state, and federal governments. But our legal system precludes this; small wonder we agree with the great British writer Charles Dickens when he said, “The law is an ass.”
So, we keep trying to move our country forward while the law keeps looking backward. This suggests that the law as currently organized has no alternative destiny but to become a bigger and bigger ass, more and more irrelevant.
And more and more lawyer jokes. We ought to put this one in our pipe and puff on it for a while.
Combine this legal sea anchor with a huge and overbearing central government and we get (Leoni again): “—– legal system centered on legislation resembles in its turn —– a centralized economy in which all the relevant decisions are made by a handful of directors, whose knowledge of the whole situation is fatally limited and whose respect, if any, for the people’s wishes is subject to that limitation.”
From Richard Epstein’s book Principles for a Free Society we get the following gem. “Law has much to learn from medicine: ‘First, do no harm.’” Like Lincoln, this cat is a lawyer.
John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice suggested that a citizen who participates in a political discussion aimed at making a rule cannot know how or if he/she may come into a dispute under that law in the future. Therefore he tends to choose the rule that will serve his estimate of the long-term advantage of the society.
Democracy is always a-building. There is seldom a final result on which any official/servant can be judged. However, what can be judged is honesty, sincerity, industry, trust, reliability, listening, commitment, integrity, things like this. (These might comprise the planks in an election campaign platform.)
One individual or several may not use the best judgment on an issue. But we are many, and collective wisdom will seldom blow it.
Democracy permits, — nay, encourages — dynamism as groups of citizens adjust to changing circumstances (and sometimes create their own).
The kicker enters when we realize that practically no one truly understands the nature and potential of democracy, even tho it comprises the very foundation of government in this country. Worse, those in high places don’t want citizens to understand.
The grim result is that no one with a public profile will comment on just what is democracy, because dynamism is change and they don’t want it. This is the tragedy of our situation.
We complete this section with a brief and true story. When the Massachusetts convention met in 1788 to consider the new Constitution on offer a minority of delegates argued strenuously against ratification and delegates listened. This was critically important. They lost the vote and the decision to ratify was made.
Afterward a member of the minority rose to speak. He stated that in spite of having lost the argument he and his colleagues would support the Constitution “as if they had voted for it.” They believed they were heard.
Friends, this is citizenship: a finer example we know not.
HOW WASHINGTON MIGHT OPERATE
In Federalist Paper No. 17, Alexander Hamilton argued that such matters as agriculture and others that can be governed by state and local governments should not be the concern of the central government. This is the essence of dispersion of political power, where only those issues that cannot be effectively handled by communities and states would be passed on as directed by citizens to a national government.
Most of the action is at state and (especially) local levels; the federal government picks up what remains. This is the intent of the 10th Amendment.
In No. 36 Hamilton demonstrated that equality of opportunity will not produce equality of result, as socialists have hoped and pushed for. “There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from the society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all; —–.”
Strong minds in every walk of life. —— due to their merit. —— equally open to all. Democracy is hypersensitive to these minds and will seek them out. (The house of representatives operates on the seniority principle. And so we have Nancy Pelosi in charge.)
We need their contributions to make it work. This includes the carpenter and the homemaker along with the executive.
Madison argued for term limits in public service. Incumbents will often disagree, pointing to the value of their expertise as built up over years.
That expertise is worse than useless because it stems from the wrong kind of experience. That is, today’s experience was gathered in a system that has over decades been corrupted by centralization of power and wealth. Long experience is not necessary in order to learn the public will on an issue and to act on it (PG3).
In No. 37 Madison argued for checks and balances in the Constitution, to avoid having one of the three branches of government grab power over the other two. This is the principle of checks and balances. But the man had the wisdom to see that this precaution would not be enough.
“—– mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the power of government in the same hands.”
He said that putting it on paper by itself wouldn’t cut it. Personal power seeking is human nature. Today the executive branch has nearly all the marbles, and President Trump knows this. Furthermore he is not the first to grab power.
Madison knew that a piece of parchment couldn’t prevent the three branches joining together to conspire against the citizens. We need to watch our representatives like hawks to be sure that they remain our representatives. Drop our guard and someone with different interests will buy them (PGs 7 and 14).
Anthony Lewis wrote a book about the First Amendment called Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. “Judge Learned Hand spoke at a wartime rally for freedom in Central Park, NY City, in 1944. His speech, entitled ‘The Spirit of Liberty,’ included this often-quoted passage:
“‘I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes, believe me, these are false hopes.
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it: ——-.'” Friends, this is truth.
No. 57 (Madison) argued that laws made must cover not only the public, but also all top public officials and their friends. This is Rule of Law. It means that absolutely no one is above the law, ever, and no exceptions no way no how.
Some of today’s high public officials argue that leaking of news is standard political “hardball.” They believe that lying to a grand jury should not be seen as a serious crime.
This policy would quickly destroy the nation’s legal system, and it is going on as we write. President Clinton’s lies under oath make up just one instance.
In a democracy the president is an agent only. He/she stands in a position of great responsibility before a large country.
But as an agent he does our bidding. He/she has more bosses than anyone else in the world. Therein lies the vast expanse of his responsibility.
De Tocqueville: “What I call great political parties are those more attached to principles than to consequences, to generalities rather than to particular cases, to ideas rather than to personalities.” So much for image merchandising, spin doctoring, charisma (PGs 13 and 15).
“The parties that threaten the Union rely not on principles but on material interests.”
SURPRISE! These folks love money too. But they have responsibility for, and thus access to, much more of that stuff than we do who put our trust in parties as aides to our representatives.
In 1830 de Tocqueville predicted that the enemy of our democracy would be very gradual and intentional deception. We keep asking ourselves how a young Frenchman coming over to visit us at that time could have the vision to make such a prediction. See PG19.
We have no answer other than to point out that in any repressive regime the people are forced to obey laws. In a pseudo-democracy those who have secretly grabbed power from the people cannot force them to obey.
Therefore officials must rely on deception. See PG19 for a description of by far the biggest scam in history.
The pleasures of the mind can be stimulating. Seems like today we hide within our emotions, looking for ever more sensationalism as we camp out in front of the tube or get lost in a mobile phone. We just hunker down and pray a lot.
Career politicians trade on this apathy (PG3). Some East Asian sage once said, “The pleasures of the senses are fleeting; the pleasures of the heart may turn to sorrow; but the pleasures of the mind are with you till the end of your journey.” Participating citizens in a democracy enjoy stretching their minds in open debate.
This illustrates a huge problem for top-down rulers, some of whom regularly murder journalists. But what they write is still there to threaten the corrupt system.
Citizens in a democracy need not be preoccupied with figuring ways around oppression, so they are free to pursue their commercial and other interests. The flip side is getting them to continuously keep government shaped up, as the human tendency is to kick back, make some more money, and assume government is doing what we want.
It is good if a country has security of private property, relatively low taxes, enforcement of contracts, free markets, and free trade. These make up a desirable economic environment for wealth creation.
But investors also need to know that these freedoms and rights will stick around before they invest for the long term. Democracy is the best guarantee available, because if a dictator or a group of aristocrats rules a country it is stuck with Rule of Man.
This means that some or all of those freedoms and rights may be canceled by the next ruler. Here we see that while democracy is not an economic notion it can help support economic growth through productive long-term investment. Ray Carey’s book Democratic Capitalism very capably illustrates this connection.
In 1843, the Edinburgh Review: “Be assured that freedom of trade, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of actions, are but modifications of one great fundamental truth, and that all must be maintained or all risked; they stand and fall together.”
Democracy has been described as a delicate blossom that must be nurtured lest it wilt. We think the analogy is accurate.
James Madison: “You must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
We believe there is a place in democracy for the citizen with ambition and drive. Someone with great natural ability may not utilize it to its fullest potential, while someone with lesser gifts could be driven to utilize them to the full in the pursuit of greatness in contributing to society. The latter could well bypass the former, and thus merit and receive greater rewards.
Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay Self-Reliance: “Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide; him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire.” We freely amend this remark to include women.
There is someone who, while in government, the elites thought was a weirdo, but he may be a close match to the founding fathers. He is former congressman Ron Paul, who has run for president twice.
Economist 7/2007): “Ron Paul, —– likes to say what he thinks. And among the things he thinks is that the census is a violation of privacy.
“He has opted out of the congressional pension program.” This is a major taxpayer rip-off. “He claims never to have voted for a tax increase, or for an unbalanced budget, or for a congressional pay raise and never to have gone on a congressional junket.
“He wants to return to the gold standard. Most notably, he strongly opposes the Iraq war and has from the beginning.” We like all of these.
The gold standard fixes the value of money, which protects the rights of creditors. Furthermore it forces high-spending governments to cut back. Once the currency is taken off a peg (Nixon in 1971) to something of permanent value — gold — it’s open season for government to abuse it.
The Economist apparently also likes what Paul says (10/2007): “”Abolishing the federal income tax is a priority ———.” Both major parties are stuffed with spendaholics; they depend on the income tax to finance much of their massive and self-serving programs.
He wants America out of the UN, the WTO (World Trade Organization), and any other international arrangement. Jefferson warned against involvement “——– in the broils of Europe.” We deviate from Dr. Paul’s prescriptions only in the case of the UN, but only if the organization is overhauled. See PG12.
None of the elites can understand how Paul got re-elected to the house of representatives time and again, especially when he consistently voted against policies that would provide benefits to his Texas constituents. No wonder they can’t understand; Ron is to the very core of his being an honest man.
Voters in his district obviously appreciate this trait. Where else in the congress might we find this? Hard to say. The word “honest” does not exist in Washingtonspeak. Here is more on that subject:
SOME VAGUE BUT IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS AND HOW GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TWIST THEM TO SUIT THEIR PURPOSE
FREEDOM: An environment where each individual can do as he/she may please, so long as he exerts neither force nor fraud on others and is subject to laws created by citizens in the community, state, and nation where he lives.
RULE OF LAW: In a democracy, when laws are made by those who agree to live under them, absolutely no one is above the law. This includes the president of the country, whom we hire as an agent to help us enforce the law. Otherwise it is similar to a cop ripping off a citizen’s car, only writ much larger and thus more serious for the entire nation.
EQUALITY: This means equal opportunity to enjoy success in accordance with an individual’s talents, effort, and persistence. No one enjoys any special privilege due to membership in any interest group, however constituted. It assumes equal access for all to a good quality basic education.
JUSTICE: This is equal treatment before the law, which in turn means that swift and sure punishment shall fit the crime, no one punished more than once for the same offense, and no one shall suffer harsher punishment than another for the same offense.
TRUTH: Citizens constantly pursue truth while realizing that it will never be attained completely. It is a guide to all governmental activity and the objective of all serious inquiry.
HONESTY: This means openness in an individual’s relations with others, and an expectation of the same in return. It is a total and consistent lack of deceit. The first priority is honesty with oneself.
INTEGRITY: An individual office holder will occasionally be visited by temptation. His/her rejection is consistent, no matter the offer. After the period of service is completed he will agree not to exert undue influence due to contacts with current office holders under any circumstances. For a similar reason he frowns on nepotism.
LIBERTY: This is a feeling in an individual as he/she enjoys a maximum of freedoms while supervised by a minimum of laws. It is a goal of every good government to protect the liberty of its citizens.
PARTICIPATION: A citizen who is active in his/her government at one level offers initiatives and opinions before group meetings. He also provides constructive criticism in order to add strength and relevance to ideas and recommendations put forth by others. He leads or provides assistance to community voluntary projects.
ACCOUNTABILITY: Citizens originate government. They support it while electing representatives to help them govern themselves. They place trust in these public servants, but, knowing human nature, they also keep a close and continuing watch over their activities and quickly expose deviations of any kind from the line of duty. It’s their money, so they are tough bosses.
We may search among these definitions in vain for any evidence that suggests that we must hire superstars to represent us as our public servants. Cannot a bricklayer be honest? Accountable? Help our government secure liberty for each of us? A store department manager? A meter reader?
Friends, this is not the problem. We will show below how the above definitions get distorted by the elites, mostly in Washington, to suit their purposes and not ours. More on this in PG19.
William Greider wrote a book called Who Will Tell the People. Looks like we are having a go at answering this question.
“If one listens carefully to the language of political decision making, the raw outlines of this struggle can frequently be heard. The public’s side of the argument is described as ‘emotional,’ whereas those who govern are said to be making ‘rational’ or ‘responsible’ choices. In the masculine culture of management, ‘emotion’ is assigned a position of weakness whereas ‘facts’ are hard and potent.
“The reality, of course, is that the ability to define what is or isn’t ‘rational’ is itself laden with political self-interest, whether the definition comes from a corporate lobbyist or from a federal agency. One way or another, information is loaded.” Friends, this is a biggie.
With democracy so hard to define, surely it is convenient for entrenched elites to encourage a misdefinition in the interest of —— well, their own interest. This makes democracy a foil, a façade behind which clever politicians can hide.
The elites have cleverly deflected a serious threat to their rule. Are congratulations in order?
Clever lads and lassies they be. They have distorted meanings to the point where they and the news media discuss the challenges of preserving democracy for us good folks instead of showing us how to achieve it.
Eric Alterman wrote a book called Sound and Fury. In it he cuts Washington into thin steaks.
“Consider the terms ‘freedom,’ ‘leadership,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘strength,’ ‘credibility,’ ‘security.’ All can be said to represent fundamental virtues to which Americans profess allegiance and which American politicians promise to uphold.
“Yet in the context of the contemporary American politics, all have become buzzwords for nothing more than the willingness to go to war, to threaten war, and to fund, subsidize, and prepare for war.
“We defend tyranny in the name of freedom. We behave obsequiously in the name of leadership. We allow ourselves to be crudely manipulated in the name of strength. We lie in the name of credibility. And we poison our beautiful country in the name of national security.”
The man writes truth, but we have a serious quibble with his use of “WE” in this paragraph. We think by use of this pronoun he means the American government, not us (except the manipulation). We surely hope so.
We like books. Most are written by people who feel no compelling need to go to Washington and sacrifice their integrity for access to the upper reaches of personal power (ambitious journalists, congressmen, presidents, bureaucrats, judges), so they can write about what they truly see and feel.
They reveal what the news media will not. These revelations cruise much nearer to truth.
Sadly, few of us make the effort to read about the central government and then do some hard thinking. We will list some books that have helped us at the end of PG20.
Serious book reading is becoming a lost art. The result is that we are losing a whole lot of other things. Maybe the new electronic books will help to retrieve an excellent habit.
Friedrich Hayek wrote one in 1944 called The Road to Serfdom. “—– complete perversion of language —–.
“The worst sufferer in this respect is, of course, the word ‘liberty.’ It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said — and it should serve as a warning to us to be on our guard against all the tempters who promise us New Liberties for Old — that wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people.”
We citizens should promise vigilance to ourselves. Then, if we should renege in the future it’s on us. We will not.
Liberty is admittedly a good selling point. Hitler loved it.
As we indicated, the difficulties in Washington originated far back. In 1949 George Orwell wrote a book called 1984. The fact that we remember it well some 70+ years later says something.
He predicted that by 1984 our lives would be dominated by Big Brother, or the central government. Big Brother would teach us, over and over again, that “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
Tom Paine, Alexis de Tocqueville, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson all predicted much the same outcome.
The enemy is the mass of peasants out there. “We” cannot trust them to make the best decisions.
Therefore we must pass laws and regulations by the ton to make sure that they remain passive and irrelevant while the real business of government goes forward. Specifically, we must defend and preserve “our democracy” against this threat.
Too clever by half, friends. To the elites we are the enemy, but because when we, — all of us — have a democracy in place and functioning we ordinary citizens would clearly have a strong voice in how we are governed. See the essay “Society v Government.”
DAMN! If we were that smart and immoral we could be as rich as they are.
Does it have to be “we” and “they?”
THE REALITY IN WASHINGTON
Speech writer Peggy Noonan: “The voters think Washington is a whorehouse and every four years they get a chance to elect a new piano player.” Ms. Noonan has been around Washington for a long time as has PJ O’Rourke, who wrote Parliament of Whores (1991).
INSIDER/CAREER POLITICIANS: Some time after WWII top government officials got into the special interest money business. In the only human rush to obtain and hold onto more and more personal power citizens and their concerns were put on the back burner.
Television was heaven-sent for these characters. Thru this new medium career politicians with lots of money could reach millions of citizens with their messages of deceit.
But it got still worse. So in order to buy still more votes politicians started incurring additional central government obligations and putting them “off budget.” Right now we citizens have taken on roughly $40-50 trillion in contingent and unfunded liabilities without our consent.
This does not mean our grandchildren will have to pay this entire mind-blowing figure. But no one can predict how much of it they will have to pay.
This is in addition to the $23 trillion of national debt on the books. The Declaration of Independence refers to “consent of the governed.” Did we the governed consent to this mountain of debt? We oughta “t’row da bums out.”
Furthermore, if he/she can fool the public into voting for him there is no need to say anything of substance. It’s all form these days: all fluff, all spin.
If anything of substance is said it immediately goes on the record. Fulfilling such a promise later on may ruin chances for big batches of bucks coming at our “public servant” from special interest lobbyists.
And he/she needs this money to get re-elected. Television inhales the filthy stuff. And parts of social media are not cheap.
We salute them for their ability to plan ahead. We only wish this planning was aimed at representing our interest as taxpayers and not theirs as office holders and egotists.
We suspect that image merchandising and mud slinging prevails due to agreements among candidates. Reality and principles don’t win votes, and this is really (no pun intended) and truly sad.
Television helped them more than it did us. Even during the 1940s when fantasy in movies assumed prominence in society we retained some grip on reality.
But then along came the tube. Even the news is spin-doctored and overdramatized by beautiful people.
Anchors are rich and treated as celebrities. This is ridiculous. (In Britain they are called news readers; this is more real.) We believe that television has, on balance, done terrible damage to the society thru robbing citizens of their thinking time.
A government of the not rich, by the rich, and for the rich is not a democracy. We pay the piper but the elites call the tune. Something wrong here.
THE SLIPPERY SLOPE: In 1787 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”
Up to that time world governments had nearly always been thru accident and force. Hamilton’s was truly an historic moment. He understood human nature and its tendencies.
So we need to ask how many citizens today engage in reflection and free choice and then act on their conclusions to formulate, enhance, and maintain a democracy in their neighborhoods and communities? We have been asking. Are we but a voice in the wilderness?
A booze here and there certainly does no harm to an individual person; don’t most folks indulge? As we all know, pursued to its conclusion a drinker sometimes indulges to the point where his/her individual liberties and options are severely restricted.
Eventually an alcoholic may realize he/she has a problem, but at that point there is often little that he can do about it. However, some of them do take the bull by the horns and are successful in their recovery.
This may be where the American society is today. Our recent ancestors and we have permitted “our” government, formed by our earlier ancestors and that once was a part of us, to slowly slide downward to the point where we realize there is a serious problem.
George Will (1/2005 column): “Bush has not spoken of character as something that is, to a very limited but very important extent, constructed. Public policy participates in the building of it.
“This is a doctrine of architectonic government — government concerned with shaping the structure of the citizenry’s soul.” The monster has taken most of our money and all of our loyalty. Now it wants power over our souls?
Economist (7/2009): “But during the 13 years that the author of this column has spent in America, he too has found his initial exuberance clouded by darker thoughts.
“Americans are more pessimistic than the Indians or Chinese, worried that their children will not enjoy the opportunities that they have taken for granted. Xenophobia is on the rise, as in nostalgia for a time of stable families and solid values.” Values and soul may be perceived as similar by those who are upset.
“The Iraq war —–. America sullied not just its moral authority, —— but also its reputation for competence, —–. The economic crisis —-. —–. Financial wizards have been exposed as frauds or fools.
“A country that once lectured the world on the ‘Washington consensus’ of deregulation and privatization is busy reregulating Wall Street and nationalizing Detroit.”
Hence we are confronted with the option of taking the bull by the horns, even tho this is a tough option. The other option is to resign ourselves to the belief that nothing can be done and we’ll muddle thru it somehow. Bar tender, we’ll have another, please.
The kicker hits us when we realize that that is what our parents and we have been doing for the past 70 or so years. Friends, we’re tired of muddling and rolling with the punches.
We unpleasantly recalled Hamilton’s observation above when we read Rivenbark’s article “Are We Too Dumb for Democracy?” (News & Observer 11/7/2010): “I talked to one phone pollster because I believe it’s crucial to take part in the American political process whenever possible.”
The kicker here is that the American political process stole our democracy decades ago. “The survey started fine, but in a few minutes it began to disintegrate.
“‘Would you vote for candidate A if you knew that he wanted to gamble with the financial security of your children and grandchildren?'” This gimmick is not unique.
Years ago we got one in the mail from senator Trent Lott about national defense. It included an “opportunity” to donate generously to the pentagon. The questions were slanted just like in the current example.
Friends, are we truly too dumb for democracy? If so there is no point in planning for a bright future. We are resigned to go on rolling with the punches Washington throws at us. (And Publius II has wasted 30+ years of his time, dedication and persistence.)
Let’s get a life before it is too late. The Economist (12/2004) explained the government’s keen interest in development of nonlethal weapons “——- for a simple reason: Iraq.”
We followed this war closely, and we saw nothing about the use of such weapons in that conflict. It’s all deadly force, destruction, and limbs blown off those who survive.
Examples of nonlethals include a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), which can incapacitate anyone within 300 meters. There is a radiation device that causes vibrations in water molecules just beneath the skin. This creates a terrible burning sensation.
Someone should ask why these weapons are needed in a democracy. We are asking.
If not in Iraq, we wonder if the elitists fear that we may act on our wrath and organize demonstrations. Are the warmongers in Washington using our money to develop weapons for use against us? Think China’s Tian ‘Anmen Square on June 4, 1989 (lethal weapons).
In a 7/1998 column David Boldt asked “Can We Mend Our Civic Fabric? According to Daniel Yankelovich (pollster) ———, huge majorities of Americans have believed for some time that the nation is ‘in a long-term moral decline.’
“In response to this perception, at least a half-dozen councils, commissions, projects, and programs have been formed to revive both the state of our civic morality and the ‘mediating institutions’ such as families, schools, and religious organizations that once taught and enforced morality.”
Government officials can stack blue-ribbon commissions as high as they want. No good will come of this effort, and they know it. Friends, these institutions must be built by us, maintained by us, modified over time by us, and terminated by us when we think appropriate.
What do the elites in big government know about families of ordinary folks, our schools, and churches? Zip. And they don’t want to know. As far as they are concerned, we live on a different planet.
Even at election time, when they salaam three times before us, it is faked. They perceive us as riffraff with fat wallets.
We perceive them as a pack of conmen/women. Mutual contempt distorts communication between these two completely separate groups of people. See the essay “Society vs Government.”
Broder (10/1999 column) read a book called Nonvoters: America’s No-Shows, by Jack Doppelt and Ellen Shearer. Their research categorized nonvoters into “don’t knows,” “alienated,” “doers,” “unpluggeds,” and “irritables.” They provided percentages and reasons for not voting.
Broder summarized: “—– belief of a majority of Americans that a vote has not only lost its actual value in terms of influencing the result of an election —— but also its symbolic value as a democratic virtue ——.” These people need to understand that in today’s political environment even if they could vote and influence the outcome of an election still nothing would change in Washington.
Huge wads of money change hands daily in that place, and that dirty money sets the status quo in stone. Votes no longer matter. Well-meaning folks who pound on doors to get out the vote are naïve.
PALACE INTRIGUE: Lapham’s book The Wish for Kings takes devastating pot shots at Washington. “The courtier spirit is about the wish to make time stand still, about being, not becoming.
“—— the time at court is always noon. Favors come and favors go, and so do wars and presidents, but the court lives forever in the land of the perpetual present, preserved —— in the precious amber of incumbency.”
Lapham suggests that the status quo is the most desirable objective of all of Washington’s parasites. It explains why they love gridlock, while complaining about it at the same time in order to fake us into believing that they are the nation’s movers and shakers (PG19).
It is far easier for us to watch some “experts” on the tube analyze an issue and fight over it than to think it thru for ourselves. The kicker here is that what we are watching is not analysis; it is hype. To quote Ross Perot who quoted Lawrence Welk: and the “wonnerful, wonnerful!” world of fantasy continues unmolested.
Our hearts go out to these poor, rich fools. We suspect that in their dreams they cry out “God! To be my own man/woman again!”
We understand that today’s White House staff numbers around 1,500. A 15th-century Chinese Ming Dynasty Emperor kept a concubine for each night of the year. Apparently he somehow scraped along with a smaller staff.
Tom Paine on courtiers: “—— in the fawning character of that creature known in all countries, and a friend to none, a Courtier. —– and while they appear to quarrel, they agree to plunder.”
Our antennae went straight with that last remark because it is right on target in Washington. Politicians get more press than other parasites and so we hear more of this false posturing and bluster than we do from others. Nevertheless, we now learn of the nature of the mortal fear under which every one of them labors from day to day.
Some lack the stomach for this charade and leave after a few years. It must take a certain type of person to persist.
We wonder if any researcher has tested the incidence of ulcers, heart disease, cancer, stroke, and marital difficulty among insiders versus us outsiders. We are beginning to pity them, although our contempt still predominates.
This is the Washington mentality. Earlier we said democracy is a mentality but, try as we might, we cannot find these two even approximately equal. Thinking about it more: NOT EVEN CLOSE.
A deep sickness infects those who go to Washington. Most arrive without it, but their principles simply cannot stand up under the strain of political urgency.
It is but a tiny leap from here to the arrogant assumption that folks who aren’t like us can’t handle the complexity of today’s political and economic issues. Therefore we’ll take over the whole show while working hard to convince those yokels outside of Washington that we are acting in their interests.
And so evolves the elite class; the chosen few who rule over us. We should ask, who chose most of them?
Right after 9/11 GW Bush’s testosterone caused him to go off half-cocked. In his speech he preached old-fashioned virtues: personal responsibility, self-reliance, and restraint.
But he did not practice these. If after reflection the conclusion was that American government foreign policy in the Middle East brought on the attacks. Bush could have accepted responsibility. But today no politician or bureaucrat assumes responsibility for anything negative.
Can reflection lead to a better response? In 11/2003 Parker (Economist Survey): “Only two years after September 11th, fewer than half the respondents supported the statement that ‘We should try to get even with any country that tries to take advantage of the United States.’”
“Don’t get mad; get even.” This one never was a viable option, because revenge is God’s privilege and not that of mortal beings. It only adds fuel to the fire instead of controlling it. Ancient Chinese proverb: “If you take revenge you must dig two graves.”
In a 11/2005 column Lehman showed that bureaucrats don’t reflect much. “Sixteen months ago, after more than a year of investigation ———— Sept. 11 Commission unanimously approved 41 hard-hitting recommendations for urgent reform. Priority —— need to rebuild the bloated and failed intelligence bureaucracies.
“Since Sept. 11 there’s been no real action to fix ——– the dysfunctional intelligence agencies whose incompetence exposed us to surprise attack. Not a single person has been disciplined, and most have been promoted.
“——– reached all the way back to the McNamara years to create a huge new staff to sit atop the old, still bloated bureaucracies.” Small wonder that survey results report that citizens feel less safe today than before 9/11.
Citizens can and occasionally do blow their cool. Time must pass and reflection should occur before they can regain it. The same applies to governments.
Lapham’s palace is truly a charade. But we must hand it to them; they are awfully good at it. Of course, most have had many years of practice.
`Benjamin Franklin: “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men —– the love of power and the love of money ——- when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move Heaven and earth to obtain it.”
In London in the 1700s: “—– the extreme corruption prevalent among all orders of men in this old, rotten state” with its “numberless and needless places, enormous salaries, pensions, perquisites, bribes, groundless quarrels, foolish expeditions, false accounts or no accounts, contracts and jobs that devour all revenue ——.”
Does this remind us of another city? We had got the idea that this is what Franklin urged our forefathers to fight against.
Mark Twain said, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself.”
Congress’s salaries, expenses, privileges, and perks in 1970 cost us $343 million. By 1980 that had swelled to $1.2 billion, and by 1992 it had ballooned to $2.8 billion. And this figure is still greater today, shortly after members of the congress just voted yet another raise for themselves (to $162,100).
Congressional staff assistants in the 1950s were around 5,300. Now they number more than 39,000. The list includes scads of sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, in-laws, out-laws ——-.
No prizes for guessing who pays for all this luxury at the palace court where our public servants labor so furiously on our behalf. Not long ago someone raised a stink about this, so the congress obligingly cut about two percent in order to get the rabble to stop squawking. (Shortly afterward most of those who were cut were quietly reinstated, probably with back pay.)
Those who labor in the national government are human beings, so we don’t mind if they sometimes do some things on their own behalf. But not with our money; we can’t do our thing with theirs.
The Economist (10/1999) addressed the question of gridlock in the Congress. “This was the year social security —– was supposed to be ‘saved.’ But there is no agreement on this huge social change.
“The same goes for the other grand hope of 1999, reforming Medicare. Bills to reform campaign finance and the bankruptcy code have passed the House but are vulnerable to being talked into oblivion in the Senate.” (Someone said this is where ideas go to die.)
A member of congress would explain by saying the democratic process is inefficient because everyone who wants a voice should be heard. This is true, but a deep commitment to the status quo is what really drives that august body, not democracy.
Friends, gridlock in the congress is planned. “The process is always messy. Congress’s trains never run on time. Occasionally, they come off the rails. Now, tho, congress is scheduling its train wrecks in advance.”
It’s early 2007 and no reforms. Well, maybe just one. The government has tacked prescription drug coverage onto Medicare, and with no indication from where the money will come.
One train that never derails and always runs on time is the one that arrives at the same time every day of the year in Union Station, Washington. That is the train bearing billions of taxpayer dollars. Here we find the very picture of efficiency.
Jefferson described conditions in England and France, where under ham-fisted regimes at least minor insurrections took place almost annually. In Turkey, where the despot in charge waved his hand and a man was put to death, insurrections occurred more frequently.
The palace court hates leaks. During the Nixon era Henry Kissinger blew a gasket whenever he discovered one.
But the open society lurks in the shadows, and with it truth. See PG5. All good things must eventually come to an end, including the greatest bash in history.
James Madison was the driving force behind the compilation of the Constitution. He said the Founding Fathers did not anticipate that members of congress would have full-time jobs.
Having worked for a period of years and become successful in their chosen line of work some people would become aware of a hankering for public service. These men and women would form the pool from which representatives would be selected to run for office.
In those days it took 2-3 weeks to get from Georgia to Washington, but nevertheless representatives went back and forth to stay in touch with their citizens. Even the basic telephone didn’t exist.
Today congressmen hate to go back and talk with the people because they have to take tons of guff from what they perceive as riffraff. Life in Washington is much more pleasant, schmoozing with their own kind. (No prize for guessing whether or not retired 35-year Senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole went back to Kansas.)
It is not a matter of luck that to date our economy has not been wrecked. The fact is that our economy is huge, and the thieves have not yet had sufficient time to wreck it.
They are getting close and they cannot stop. Human nature propels them, lemming-like, to their own destruction. And ours if we don’t act.
“Our” legislators believe in equality. Congressmen in both parties are bought and sold equally.
LEADERS AND CAMPAIGNS: Peterson in his book Running on Empty: “The yawning gap between the high art of governing and the low art of getting elected is just too ridiculous to pass over. The high art ——- strong principles, practical wisdom, and making tough choices.
“The low art ——- spinning, denial, pandering, playacting, deal-making, and creative accommodation — when it is not about outright deception and fraud.” Hard to avoid the whiff of something being hidden from view. See PG19.
Career politicians today seem to be running a permanent campaign. (Bill Clinton springs to mind.) Being on top of each 24-hour news cycle has displaced serious debate among citizens.
Democracy is as strong as we make it. If we govern ourselves effectively we will need only mild but effective leadership in our representatives.
If we don’t provide this leadership the way is open for a tyrant or group of tyrants (called an oligarchy) to take over. We note that a career politician is not a leader, not even a mild one.
He/she says only what we want to hear in order to get re-elected. Between elections he steps to a different drumbeat.
We note that there is today a movement afoot to phase out the British monarchy. “Bad show old fellow, what?”
If this happens we will watch the beautiful, bejeweled crown very carefully lest it find its way across the Atlantic. In his grave King George III would bust a gut laughing.
The seamy side of human nature has been on grisly display in Washington for decades. The good side recognizes the tendency to give, to contribute. It holds “What can I contribute” above “What’s in it for me?”
We citizens like to help people. See PG6. We resent constantly contributing toward the care and feeding of thieves, especially when the “contributions” are collected through force.
Kevin Phillips in his book Arrogant Capital reported on a 1993 survey. Respondents were so unhappy with the Congress that they figured we might as well auction off every office to the highest bidder. These good folks did not realize that this goes on every day in the Washington Grand Bazaar.
Greider: “Instead of a politics that leads the society sooner or later to confront its problems, American politics has developed new ways to hide from them.”
Note how well that ties in with Ron Reagan’s “feel good” politics. As he indicated so smoothly with his telegenic personality, everyone was to feel just great while ignoring reality.
Reagan was an actor. Much of his life was rooted in fantasy.
This is what he sold to us during 1981-9. But the ground had been prepared for him long before.
During his election campaign in 1988 and while in office elder President Bush encouraged citizen polls. He was not alone in this.
The intent is to convince us that Washington is listening to our opinions and will act on them. The reality lies in a hidden agenda.
One polling firm asked what people wanted the new president to be concerned about. Back came the usual: big corporations should pay their fair share of taxes, environmental regulations, toxic wastes, the poor, the homeless, trade laws, health insurance, etc.
The list had absolutely no impact on the campaign or on his priorities, but shortly afterward Mr. Bush was elected. He later governed pretty much contrary to most of these concerns.
Because he did not state his position on these issues during his campaign, he got away with it. (They were displaced by really heavy issues such as flag burning and Willie Horton.)
Reasoning eventually gets distorted to the belief that the public must want just what the president wants or they would not have elected him. In this way voters come to depend on politicians for their political positions, rather than the other way round.
How can any politician/candidate retain confidence in him/herself when he knows that he wins or loses on the money? He is a stage actor chained to a script cobbled together by consultants driven by money.
Not only this, the “directors” frequently change the rules during a campaign. Stage actors do not need to be leaders.
During October 2000 columnist George Will felt called upon to comment. “For that we missed the telecast of the A’s-Yankees game? Surely it is obvious that these misbegotten and misnamed ‘debates’ — actually, parallel press conferences — test no aptitude pertinent to the performance of serious presidential duties.”
This is why it was such a kick in 1992 to see Ross Perot in it up to his ears. He forced the two career politicians on the debate stage with him to discuss what he called our crazy aunt in the basement: everyone knows she is there but no one talks about her. He was referring to our horrendous and unpardonable central government debt, and the huge budget deficits that fed it.
This caused no end of snorting, harrumphing, and shuffling of feet among career politicians and party hacks. They are not at all comfortable with telling voters what they don’t want to hear.
Ol’ Ross came damn near upsetting the biggest apple cart ever cobbled together. He scared the pants off the career politicians. Therefore when he showed up four years later with another ration of embarrassing reality they found an excuse to muzzle him.
In 1992 Perot spent $60 million of his own money to finance his campaign. So, this lump was pulled out of his petty cash box, but this is beside the point that we want to make here.
His efforts spawned United We Stand America, which later became the Reform Party. Good thing, what? We surely need to do something to provide citizens a real choice at the ballot box.
Forward to 2009 and a mind-blowing fiscal deficit of $1.5 trillion for that year. We should have listened to Ross Perot in ’92.
Economist 6/2009: “It is true that governments have recovered from enormous deficits in the past, notably after large wars. ————-. No such automatic boosters will kick in this time.
“The kind of patriotic spirit that encourages consumers to put up with austerity is not yet in evidence either.” Patriotic spirit is always in short supply in a society that is in decline. And here comes the big kicker:
“There could be a long decade of political turbulence as voters find that the champagne has run out, and all they have left to drink is castor oil.” This is the price of profligacy. We should think long and hard about what got us into this lingering mess and without our consent.
But the oligarchy does not like competition, as the Economist discovered (10/1999). “Denise Giardina is running for governor —– the Mountain Party, —–. ———. In order to get her name on the ballot for next November’s election, she must gather at least 14,000 signatures ————-.”
Reasonable, we might say. “To make things even harder, she is required by state law to tell people, when they sign her petition that signing up for a minority party is an offense which will debar them from voting in the state primaries.”
Casting one’s lot with a third party is an offense? Now, just a damn minute here!
Maybe this squelch of competition exists in just one misguided state? “State legislatures are everywhere controlled by republicans or democrats, and these rejoice in putting obstacles in the way of alternative parties.
“For third-party presidential candidates, this means fighting thru thickets of different laws in every state. Minor-party candidates are often kept out of debates (Perot in ’96), and they have even been denied access to lists of registered voters.”
Just another damn minute here. The Economist completed this rotten picture with a very relevant bit of history.
“There are no constitutional barriers to a multi-party system, and third parties have not always had such a hard row to hoe. They have been common in American history, and have often marked historical shifts in the country’s political thinking.”
Do these clowns really and truly expect us to go on believing that we live in a free and open society? We’re learning about democracy here, and so we appreciate the merits and the vital necessity of free public debate and free choice among candidates for public office.
De Tocqueville (1830): “It really is difficult to imagine how people who have entirely given up managing their own affairs could make a wise choice of those who are to do that for them. One should never expect a liberal, energetic, and wise government to originate in the votes of a people of servants.”
Sounds like a small child exercising judgment in selecting his/her parents. He/she listens to speeches by several couples and then is told to make his choice.
It is not in the custom of humanity for servants to select their masters. A government based on this kind of choice cannot work well.
As Perot said: “You want to know where the ultimate problem is? Look in the mirror.” That cat pulled no punches. He was right, friends: in the last analysis it’s on us.
We don’t want to hear this. But we’re not politicians, so we’re going to say it like it is.
The Economist (April 15, 2000) has a contribution. “Don’t Stop Believing,” ——.
“Reform of ‘product markets’ aims to boost competition among firms, thru privatization, deregulation, the liberalization of trade and by making it easier to start a business or attract investment. Such reforms generate bigger benefits in the long run ———, but can nonetheless boost output almost immediately.
“Deregulation of the energy sector, for example, can reduce costs and boost profits in other industries, and open new investment opportunities.
“—- reform of labor markets is much more dependent on the state of the economy. Reform which makes it easier to hire and fire workers contribute to rapid growth in input and employment when an economy is already running on all cylinders. At times of weakness, however, firms respond by doing far more firing than hiring, deepening the downturn.
George Will offers a somber warning of what’s to come: outrage personified. News & Observer 11/2016: “The party’s leader is at best indifferent to, and often is hostile to, much of the party’s recent catechism: limited government, the rule of law, a restrained executive, fiscal probity, entitlement reforms, free trade, the general efficiency and equity of markets allocating wealth and opportunity, and — this matters especially —the importance of decorousness in public discourse.”
“Many things, and all the most important ones, cannot be effectively advocated at the top of the advocate’s lungs. Try to shout a persuasive argument for caring about the separation of powers, or why the judiciary should be actively engaged in countering the excesses of the majoritarian branches.
“People who have been conservative since before 2015 should, — ask themselves some questions, such as: What are we saying when we say we are against free trade? Protectionism is comprehensive intervention in economic life. It supplants commercial calculations with political considerations.
“Using tariffs, which are taxes imposed at the border, government imposes its judgment of what Americans should be permitted to purchase, in what quantities and at what prices. If conservatism can embrace –- can riot distinguish itself from progressivism — the doctrine that government experts are wiser than markets in determining individuals’ choices and directing the efficient use of labor and capital?” If people rely on experts they are not doing their own thinking. Ergo, top-down government.
A powerful comment on trust News & Observer 12/2016: “Since democratic principles rest on the notion that it is the consent of the governed, not arbitrary state actions, that legitimizes government activities. It can be argued that once a baseline level of trust is breached, the government ceases to legitimately exist.”
Today this argument carries great weight. “In our raucous and combative political system, trust now seems an almost abstract theory, but democracy depends on it.” True, which reinforces our decades-long argument that our democracy was stolen from us long ago.
This piece leads us into a discussion of the result of the Fall 2016 election. (TheEconomist 12/16. “For decades anthropologists and political scientists have weighed the advantages of living in a high-trust, highly transparent country like Sweden, and measured how corruption and squandered human capital harm places like Sicily.
Trust, a book published by Francis Fukuyama 20 years ago and now sadly topical again, suggested that America and its distinctive model of capitalism flourished because strangers learned to trust one another when signing contracts, allowing them to do deals outside the circles of family, tribal or in-group kinship relied upon in low-trust societies.” These advantages are significant to the point of being overwhelming, absolutely essential.
From a review of Adam Smith: Father of Economics, by Jesse Norman. “Economists, especially in America, increasingly worry that capitalism has become too cosy — or ‘rigged,’ as President Donald Trump puts it.
“Smith got there first (1776). He fretted that the capitalists would always try to exploit ordinary people, whether by shaping regulation to their advantage or by fixing prices. ‘The rate of profit … is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin,’ he argued.”
America’s corporate profit rate is currently at historical highs. Had regulators read more Smith, the American economy might be in better shape.”
Trump won office by systematically undermining trust in any figure or institution that seemed to stand in his way, from republican rivals to his democratic opponent, leaders of congress, business bosses, the news media, fact-checkers ————.”
Ties in nicely. If an incoming top official sincerely wants sweeping changes he would be poorly advised to trust the hordes of establishment icons. “Mr. Trump will not be able to stop that destructive mission to make America less like Sweden and more like Sicily. He has too many promises that he cannot keep.” This is a sad commentary on the American malaise.
“A lower-trust America will be harder to fix.” When citizens govern themselves they will make far fewer laws and they will enforce them: people support what they help to create. Absent too many laws and overbearing govt, moral suasion will quickly create and build trust. See PG20.
This gofer is not being written to win a popularity contest. Rather, it is to stir up some brain cells. And some action.
So our grandparents, parents, and we dropped our guard. The cat went on extended holiday and the mice came out to play. Well, it was a nice trip, but now we’re back.
NEWS MEDIA: Something unpleasant gradually put a claim on our thinking. Who would have believed that the news media are also part of the problem?
We recall how they slam-dunked Perot in 1992 as a serious threat to the system. All he wanted to do was to provide some truth about it to voters.
Jump ahead ten years to a column by de la Vina (11/2002): “Five months after ABC pulled the plug on his show ‘Politically Incorrect,’ comedian Bill Maher is struggling to name a network television show — any show — that presents political humor with a punch.”
Friends, this is sad by itself, in that in order to get us to watch criticism of the government it must be humorous. But it gets worse.
“—— show was cancelled in June, nine months after he said on the air that unlike the September 11th terrorists, ‘we have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away.’ —– the comedian is not the only network surfer at a loss to find any political humor that goes deeper than lampooning the apparent character flaws of politicos.
Kings of old tolerated no criticism. Realizing the danger inherent in such pig-headedness, court jesters were trained to present criticism in a humorous manner.
“In the first few months after the terrorist attack, political comedians such as Maher learned that any joke remotely critical of Bush and his policies was verboten (forbidden).” In November 2002, “Guest comedians on ‘The Tonight Show’ and ‘Late Show’ whose material has any real political bite are asked to check their topical jokes at the door.”
And actress-comedian Janeane Garofalo: “And mainstream media seem to marginalize all voices of dissent.” A citizen is tempted to ask, What happened to free speech? What happened to the traditional role of criticism in helping any organization to shape up?
In any country with a free press, citizens depend on the news media to help keep politicians honest. Why have ours sold their souls to the system? Lapham previously explained the towering importance of access to the innermost workings of personal power.
If we could separate truth from b-s we could reward the journalist with guts. But of course that is the nature of a successful scam: the mark can’t make that vital distinction.
He/she doesn’t know when he is being fooled. (We confess that we watered a fake plant last week.) See PG19.
But he/she can entertain suspicions. This seems to be where the American society is today.
We are beginning to suspect we are being screwed. Bill O’Reilly: “Apparently the public doesn’t mind being stiffed so long as the malls stay open late and there is 24-hour sports on cable TV.” Or a new social news medium just went viral.
What if some concerned citizens got together, pooled their money, and purchased an ad in an existing newspaper that criticized a public official? The elites have that one covered also.
Will (3/2001): “The basis of political-speech regulation is the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act. ——-. Because of it, for the first time Americans were required to register with the government before spending money to disseminate criticism of its officeholders.”
Micklethwait and Wooldridge, The Fourth Revolution, pg. 195: “The Steurle-Roeper index of fiscal democracy in America measures the percentage of revenues that are available for discretionary spending (i.e., that are not already allocated to mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare). The percentage has fallen from almost 70 in 1962 to about 10 in 2012 — and the line is headed yet further down.” The congress has painted itself into a corner, and the wimps lack the guts to extricate themselves.
Friends, it looks very much like they have us, coming and going. This is free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution? First of all, we apparently must pay for speaking out.
But that isn’t all. “The first FECA enforcement action came in 1972, when some citizens organized as the National Committee for Impeachment paid $17,850 to run a New York Times ad criticizing President Nixon. His Justice Department got a court to enjoin the committee from further spending to disseminate its beliefs.”
If it’s political, you can’t purchase an ad in a newspaper. Cheest! So, let’s use some other way to disseminate.
Back to Will: “In 1976 some citizens formed the Central Long Island Tax Reform Immediately Committee, which spent $135 to distribute the voting record of a congressman who displeased them. Two years later this dissemination of truthful information brought a suit from the FEC’s speech police, who said the committee’s speech was illegal because the committee had not fulfilled all the registering and reporting the FECA requires of those who engage in independent expenditure supporting or opposing a candidate.”
135 bucks, apparently to design and print a couple thousand flyers. Not only that: there was no supporting or opposing a candidate. And, as if this was not enough: SPEECH POLICE? There must be in some thinking citizens’ minds a vision in their sleep of the First Amendment.
The target was already in public office, not a candidate, and what was disseminated was only simple truth. No doubt some of those who saw the flyer agreed at least in part with the clown’s voting record. This is nothing more or less than overkill, and an unpardonable stifling of competition.
Can we believe it? We’re not finished yet. Pity Ms. Giardina, candidate for governor. “And Bradley Smith notes that because of the law’s ambiguities and the FEC’s vast discretion, litigation has become a campaign weapon: Candidates file charges to embarrass opponents and force them to expend resources fending off the speech police.”
The Washington power elite leaves no stone unturned. Should a citizen make bold to complain to the FEC about a major-party candidate’s campaign misbehaving, action might be taken. But not until after the election.
Apparently the FEC has recruited an ally. Some 30 years ago big business lawyers devised a scheme to punish whistle-blowers who exposed wrongdoing by politicians.
Pring and Canan called these devices SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Their book SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out was reviewed in the Multinational Monitor, July-August 1996. But participation in government is absolutely essential for democracy to function!
It did not take long for public officials to jump on this one. “The message of SLAPPs ‘is unmistakable’ wrote Pring and Canan: ‘There is a price to be paid for voicing one’s views to the government. The price can be a multimillion-dollar personal lawsuit, which, even if successfully defended, can mean enormous expense, lost time, insecurity, risk, fear, and all the other stresses of extended litigation.’
“Defining SLAPPs may be the most important contribution of the authors, the leading authorities on SLAPPs. Their insight was to place all SLAPPs in a single objective category, irrespective of whether a particular suit was filed as a slander action or a conspiracy, and without regard to the intent of the target in speaking out on a public matter.
“The core of Pring and Canan’s definition of a SLAPP is a suit directed against an individual for pursuit of the Constitution’s First Amendment Petition Clause (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … to petition the Government for redress of grievance.”) ——-. —— interference with citizens’ right to speak out on matters of public interest and to seek to change government policy ——.”
Yep, no stone unturned. This is enough to rot our sox. Are we discussing the land of the free or the Soviet Union?
Lapham: “Prior to 1960 within what was still called the newspaper game it was generally believed that a reporter and a government clerk were as different —— as an elephant and an aardvark. The reporter presumably allied himself with the readers of the paper and the popular suspicion of the scoundrels in office.
“The clerk allied himself with the privileged few and the convenient truth. The distinction vanished during the 1960s, and as more and more individuals entered journalism by way of government service, —–.”
To the career politicians it must have been clear that the whole show would collapse if the media retained their traditional free-press role of thorn in the side of government. Therefore send these young stars who have developed the insider, courtier mentality and are feeding off the system out there into the media.
This makes for a most convenient reciprocal relationship: the new journalists rig the media messages in favor of the system and they gain better access to the prince thru them. Cool.
Adolf Hitler rose to great personal power through use of a simple strategy. Tell them lies, repeat them often enough, and the fools gradually come to believe them as truth as they lose the ability to determine the difference.
Lapham again: “The reporter who agrees to deal in protected information transforms himself into a press agent. The more the secrecy, the more the balance of power shifts in favor of the source. The substance of power remains with the source, the appearance of power with the journalist.”
This ruse explains how some “crusading” journalists can fake us into believing that they are filling that vital role of thorn in side. Friends, this is a decoy, intended to have us believe that the media are doing the job.
Those speedy electrons on our TV screen communicate images. But effective government is a you-must-be-there kind of activity.
Without this presence along with useful ideas that can be improved through debate politics is reduced to charisma, image merchandising, spin-doctoring. This means that government is based on illusion, and the way is wide open for the Grand Deception (PG19).
Lapham once more: “Never before in the history of the world have so many people had so much access to so much information about their prospective rulers, but the accumulated data apparently give them small comfort, ——-.”
The Economist (7/1998): “The news is not a product like any other. People learn about how they are governed from what they read in the newspapers and what they see on the television news (and some young folks on social media).
“Unless voters know something about how they are governed, they cannot have an intelligent opinion about it. And without intelligent opinions about government, you cannot have a healthy democracy.
“The news business used to be a craft, but now it has turned into a manufacturing operation. Look at the quantity of NBC’s output: over the past two years, it has gone up from three hours of television news a day to 24 hours a day, plus a constantly updated website. And that is with only a few extra reporters.”
Of course, other producers are doing the same thing in order to keep competitive; hence the avalanche of TV “news” today. These companies need to realize that viewers cannot see truth thru an avalanche (if it exists).
By simple economic necessity the vast bulk of this blizzard is fluff dressed up to look like useful information. Therefore we presumably will not complain of not being kept informed. So long as we peasants cannot distinguish truth from fluff they are home free.
The Economist: “There is a lesson in there for television. There is nothing wrong with treating news as a product for sale; but you must treat it carefully, because it contains ingredients like trust and decency that spoil easily.”
The news media practice the art of sensual excitement. They like to shock us.
They also like to dump negatives on us, so instead of talking about what government is doing when we get together we play the Ain’t-it-Awful? game. Truth and accuracy often get shoved aside:
In August 2002 a little girl disappeared (Economist): “Local television stations followed the story closely. It seemed to fit a sinister pattern. Other cases —– were cited; reporters spoke of a wave of child abduction; ——- epidemic.
“The only wave broken is one of publicity. ———–. —– the numbers do not appear to have grown in recent months. The FBI lists 62 ——, a rate slightly lower than that of the previous year, —-. ——-. And the certainty that the media will always need something new to report on is the guarantee that this so-called epidemic will wane just as quickly as it waxed.”
Because misery loves company, playing the Ain’t-it-Awful game keeps us distracted and hunkered down so that the game of government can play on unmolested. The elites don’t want us peasants thinking.
But ideas are the stuff of mind, and ultimately bring progress. The right stuff, we might add.
We have noticed a few isolated signs of improvement, but the standard news media are still mostly Washington’s lackeys. But, wait. How about the bloggers?
These mavericks set up their own web sites within minutes and start criticizing government actions. They allow other concerned citizens to throw in their two cents.
The Economist staff (12/2004) threw in theirs: “But nobody imagines that the arrival of new blood —— will revive the fortunes of network news. Most Americans now get their news from an ever-proliferating range of sources: not just Fox or CNN, but also foreign newspapers and even the innumerable original documents that are now available at the touch of a button.”
This is good news. Competition from many sources cannot but move the entire media institution toward truth in reporting.
Folks are beginning to see thru the smoke and mirrors. The paranoiacs in Washington must be sweating bullets.
ROTOROOTER: We recall the frequent purges in the former USSR under the communists. These were all perpetrated by insiders, so nothing worthwhile was accomplished except to cause many underlings to exist in mortal fear of the next one. There was no improvement in efficiency or in planning effectiveness.
Jefferson recommended a major purge of our government every 19-20 years. He wanted a completely new constitution and total change of people in public office.
At that time this was his best estimate of the time period required for half the voters to have died. Kevin Phillips demonstrated that the nation enjoyed a sort of purge (but not a new constitution), once about every generation, from 1800 to 1932.
But then along came the New Deal and World War II. Government grew too big to purge when the establishment had succeeded in centralizing too much power in Washington.
This particular concentration was fueled by stupendous wealth, in contrast to previous instances. This made big government invulnerable to the next purge attempt.
Older folks among us remember that we launched a serious attempt at a revolution in the 1960s with the counterculture movement. Although it was bottom-up and the timing was about right it failed because the massive concentration of power in Washington was just too much.
The hippies also lacked a comprehensive plan for government once the current model had been removed. The Port Huron Statement had punch, but the captive news media did not touch it.
Around 80 years since the last successful one; that’s more than two generations of gridlock. Friends, we face a challenge. PLEASE PASS THE EXLAX.
OTHER THOUGHTS: We understand that today’s White House press corps numbers around 5,000. With that many folks watching him we wonder how poor President Obama/Trump can go to the toilet without the event being covered.
We used to wonder why there was no accountability of government to us with so many journalists about and looking into things. We wonder no more. (Very recently some of the elites have questioned some of Trump’s wild outbursts. Should this develop into a movement, there might be some potential.)
We only wonder how many knees Prince Obama has, to accommodate so many courtiers. And these are just the journalists.
The Economist 2/2015: “—— desire among conservatives to be seen fighting —- Obama over his plans to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation with a few strokes of his pen.” Obama frequently used executive orders to do what he wanted when congress would not cooperate. “—— contemplating a partial govt shutdown ——- republicans in the house of representatives are pandering to their party’s angriest grassroots supporters, who have convinced themselves that Mr. Obama is not just mistaken in his policies but is a constitution-trampling tyrant.”
News & Observer 7/2015: “Violence Spikes After Long Decline.”
“Distrust of police, easy availability of guns blamed.” Gotta hand it to those NRA lobbyists; they are truly talented. Neither Obama nor anyone else has a solution; money does talk.
“In Los Angeles, —— but the number of shooting victims jumped more than 18%. “——– deepening distrust of police that leads people to settle disputes themselves, officers who are afraid of being second-guessed and court rulings that make it easier than ever to own a gun. Tighter budgets that result in cuts to law enforcement agencies could also play a role.” Almost no action. Here in June 2020 the same issues dog us.
Also, patch in poor education, which leads toward relatively more impulsive behavior instead of thinking before acting in a tense situation. Add all these factors together, and we have a horrible mess where once we had a society.
July 28/10 webcast: Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five republican judges on the U.S. supreme court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:
“‘It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. senators and congress members. So, now we’ve just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. … At the present time the incumbents, democrats and republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in congress has a great deal more to sell.'”
“He was then cut off by the program.
Noted columnist Thomas Friedman asked “Are You Sure You Want The Job?” News & Observer 10/2015: “Having watched all the debates ——–: Why would anyone want this job now? ———–. ——–. —– a lot of people, places and things all coming unstuck at once.”
Here is a scathing insight from a rare fallen career politician.Webcast, by Matt Bai.
“In 1987 Gary Hart was leading HW Bush by double digits when the media caught him in his home with a young woman. He was directed by democratic big shots to deliver a contrite address on national TV, which he did. But he did not stop there, but continued as follows:
“Then, the next morning, Hart drove the canyon road down to Denver, stepped before the national media and calmly delivered one of the most stinging and prescient indictments of an American institution you will ever see.
“’And then after all that, ponderous pundits wonder in mock seriousness why some of the best people in this country choose not to run for high office,’ Hart went on. ‘Now I want those talented people who supported me to insist that this system be changed. Too much of it is just a mockery. And if it continues to destroy people’s integrity and honor, then that system will eventually destroy itself.’
“He closed by paraphrasing his idol, Thomas Jefferson: ‘I tremble for my country when I think we may in fact get the kind of leaders we deserve.’” Apathy can destroy a fine nation?
We indicated in PG7 that the price for a lawmaker keeps going up. Re-election campaign contributions aren’t enough today. Now lobbyists representing special interest groups contribute to congresspersons’ legal defense funds, in case suspicion of a law violation gets around (tax-deductible of course).
Even this is not enough. Some of “our” illustrious congresspersons have set up personal tax-exempt foundations. With little respect for their other activities, we have to admire their chutzpah.
Many mostly worthwhile organizations receive tax money. We recently learned that some of this money is being used to lobby for more. Looks like nearly everyone is being sucked into the mess.
Recently there occurred in Washington a much hyped “values debate.” It was a sham.
To accomplish something worthwhile any debate of values must be conducted by us. Washington’s values simply don’t come anywhere near to matching ours.
Part of Washington DC is our country’s richest community, and these are second homes. Money is the great magnet.
Another convenient reason used by our rulers to avoid democracy is that it is turbulent. Surely we want and need “stable government,” don’t we?
Our Cousin Pete takes a drink every now and then to steady himself. Sometimes he gets so steady he can’t move.
Since 1960 most of us have become relatively wealthy and complacent. We have lost that keen sense of self-discipline that a tough pioneer life ingrained in our forefathers and mothers.
We should not belittle the magnitude of this loss. Because if we cannot regain it no amount of rejigging of our government, national, state or local, will enable us to accomplish any real improvement in our lives. See PG10.
The Economist (7/1999) again provided some numbers which we don’t find in the standard news media. In the 1950s a poll asked about trust in government to do what is right. Three of four respondents said “most of the time” or “about always.” By 1998 fewer than four out of ten trusted the government to do what is right.
In 1964 29 percent of voters agreed with a statement saying government is “pretty much run by a few big interests looking after themselves.” By 1998 63 percent agreed.
In the 1960s 2/3 of citizens disagreed with the statement “Elected officials don’t care what people like me think.” By 1998 nearly 2/3 agreed with the statement.
Between 1966 and 1997 those having a “great deal of confidence” in the presidency and in congress fell from 42 percent to 12 and 11 percent, respectively. We surely have lost something, because not enough people outside the system are actively holding cattle prods against these blokes’ keesters.
That we must do for ourselves. What we want and need is to force government to get off our backs so we can have the freedom that we need to pursue our chosen destiny.
Jean Jacque Rousseau (200 years ago): “When the citizens are greedy, cowardly, and pusillanimous (faint-hearted), and love ease more than liberty, they do not long hold out against the redoubled efforts of the government.”
Isabel Paterson 1943: “Whoever is fortunate enough to be an American citizen came into the greatest inheritance man has ever enjoyed. He has had the benefit of every heroic and intellectual effort men have made for many thousands of years, realized at last.
“If Americans should now turn back, submit again to slavery, it would be a betrayal so base the human race might better perish.”
SOME BRIEF THOUGHTS ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Today there surely is a lot of information zipping around about how information is zipping around. After a lot of thought we concluded that with today’s technology we could eliminate the American congress. Ali Baba had only 40 thieves to deal with.
We have 537 elected “representatives” in Washington now. With one well-aimed shot we might eliminate 535 of them. With direct democracy and small government we would no longer need these thieves. See PG7
The founding fathers wanted a democracy, but they settled on a republic or representative democracy. Travel and communications was so primitive back then, as to make direct democracy impractical. Today information circumnavigates the world in a few seconds.
Is a federal government free of corruption truly possible? We’re truly curious. See PG21.
We quote briefly from an Economist (2/1992) article.
“’Electronic democracy’ is inspired by two overlapping dislikes — of bureaucrats and of politicians — and by two ideas for making these groups more likable. The first conjures up a world where the grumpy civil servant behind a counter is replaced by an easy-to-follow screen that makes all the government’s information available at the touch of a button. The second idea wants to make politicians as answerable and accessible to their constituents as Pericles was to the tiny Athenian democracy.” (We believe this was not a true democracy. Only property-owning males could vote.)
Absence of the second — accountability — provides the opportunity for thievery. We understand that any elected public official could arrange to receive electronic messages from up to millions of citizens in seconds with digital electronic switching.
Properly promoted for state and national elections, this technology might get most people involved in their government. They would be active and concerned and would delight in holding public servants’ feet to the fire.
Something like this was tried on a TV quiz show. The response overwhelmed the digital technology available because those who installed it seriously underestimated the number who wanted to participate.
Fifteen “Info/California” machines operated for two months on a trial basis and 36,000 people used them. Santa Monica tried a “Public Electronic Network (PEN).” There were minor difficulties with electronically windy citizens, but it reinforced other results: people are interested in participating.
If we decide we want direct democracy each of us will need to shift our thinking toward individualism. That is, we will need to think more about our rights and responsibilities as individuals and de-emphasize, — nay, eliminate — the current craze for group politics ( with their tainted money).
This would be a good thing, as emphasis on group rights is inconsistent with the Constitution. Furthermore, lawyers have camped out on this issue and they are helping to fragment our society.
The Swiss people have a workable system, for them anyway. By collecting a specified number of citizen signatures they can insist that any law proposed by their government be voted on by the people. Even better, with more signatures citizens can insist on this vote even when parliament is against the idea.
With small government in Washington (PG15) and for the few issues needing feedback from down home, citizens could be queried electronically, say, at the precinct level, by the executive. Citizens who could not attend a particular meeting would need only a touch-tone phone, a PC/modem, a fax machine, or just a cell phone while on the road. Using precincts would minimize transmission of wild ideas that have not yet been discussed among citizens.
A small staff of citizens in each precinct would then write a summary of thinking on an issue. Updates and repeals would be done as requested (practically never done today). If the issue is national, precinct summaries would be aggregated and forwarded thru state governments to the president.
Then the president would proceed with enforcement as the Constitution specifies. The supreme court would continue to interpret laws, but would make none.
We want the court to confine its judgment to determining whether bills passed into law by the congress and approved by the president conform to the intent of the Constitution. Coverage includes international affairs as set forth in that document.
Other issues as specified in the Constitution should be the business of inferior courts as they function as part of the national judicial system. Congress and the people should make sure that the supreme court remains on the interpretative side of the fine line that divides interpretation from legislation.
One last shot from our friend Tom Paine. He referred to the new Constitution on offer for discussion: “It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it.
“Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was concerned.” We might keep one with our pocket gofers.
In the Age of Reason the pen/word processor is mightier than the sword/nuclear missile. This means no violence is necessary as we transform our government to suit the desires of those who are paying for it: us.
Violence is emotional, reflexive, kneejerk. Reason demands pause to think thru an issue. Violence does more harm than good because it obliterates the original focus of the protest. This act switches the emphasis to restoring order, where the authorities and police have far more leeway to exert top-down force. Also, even in a well-trained police force there are always a few in the excitement of the moment that go off half-cocked. (George Floyd springs to mind.)
Must have been a lot of excitement then: brand new nation, discussing the merits of a piece of parchment that would guide government lawmaking and enforcement into the indefinite future.
Our vision has workers on the job, folks in church, in a meeting, in a family gathering, in a laundromat, etc. whipping pocket gofers out of pocket, purse and mobile phone and having at it. We envision intellectual combat, constructive criticism, free and open debate: participative democracy in the raw.
This is as close as a community’s constitution should be as citizens go about their daily business. Good government must be ingrained into our psyches so that we devote at least a little thought to it almost every day. See PG20.
Acemoglu and Robinson in their book Economist Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy offer a thoughtful summary of the business we are in. “Different social groups prefer different political institutions because of the way they allocate political power and resources. Thus, democracy is preferred by the majority of citizens but opposed by elites.
“Dictatorship, nevertheless, is not stable when citizens can threaten social disorder and revolution. In response, when the costs of repression are sufficiently high and promises of concessions are not credible, elites may be inclined to join us as we create and implement democracy.
“Our framework implies that a relatively effective threat of rebellion from the citizens is important for democratization.” We go beyond this to suggest in PG3 that a healthy skepticism of government would maintain this threat, forcing our public servants to govern as we want.
The authors suggest that the outside force necessary to nonviolently lean on the elite class in order to force members’ cooperation in forming democracy is us. We need only believe in ourselves, get organized, gear up our courage and step forward.
Furthermore we must always remember that eternal vigilance is vital. The authors wrote that “—— in time, the elites may become more powerful in democracy.” They could do this thru political parties and lobbying against citizen-created policies.
We beg to differ. With Jefferson’s thinking in mind, we argue that in a democracy citizens would not permit the existence of an elite class in government. See PG21, where citizens guided by the new Constitution control their own finances so as to eliminate this possibility.
Jefferson: “—– that man is a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights, and with an innate sense of justice; and that he could be restrained from wrong and protected in right, by moderate powers, confined to persons of his own choice, and held to their duties by dependence on his own will ——.”
Got 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 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS
PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY
PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD 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
PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION