A Lesson to Learn From History

The axiom that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are forever doomed to repeat them holds painfully true in the context of the events currently sweeping throughout countries that for decades have been governed under oppressive and dictatorial regimes. It appears that the American electorate is coming perilously close to repeating the historical mistakes of the past while attempting to remain the shining light of liberty we must be in the world.

A generation ago, people throughout South and Central America who were voicing their opposition to the tyrannical governments in the region were dealt with by those  regimes in a manner that resulted in those patriots collectively becoming known as “Los Desaparecidos” – ‘the disappeared ones’. Simply for speaking out, they were taken in the night – never to be seen again.

These people were simply asking for the right to vote in a democratic election. They gave their lives simply for the possibility that their children, their grandchildren , might one day have the right to vote, to have a say in the future of their country, to be given a political voice: to live in freedom.

Today, in a groundswell of populist uprisings, people are freely giving up their lives, on the hope that one day freedom may come to their descendants.  The regimes that came to power in those countries did so with the acquiescence of the populace – that permission given mostly by their silence.

In this new media saturation age, given the cable news networks, the internet, social networks and the like, the struggles and loss of life by peoples who have the yearning to be free are continually broadcast to our televisions, computers and portable devices. There can be little way of ignoring their plight, of seeing it all in real time. This country was founded upon the right to be free, and subsequent generations have willingly fought and died to protect the freedoms this country has come to stand for. It is troubling to think that were the American revolution held today, viewed in real time, that there would people who would opt not to fight to win the freedoms they today enjoy, that a consensus majority would choose to remain in silence.

The nature of that silence is the absence of, on average, more than forty percent of the electorate; their choosing not to give voice to their freedom by relinquishing their right, and more importantly, their responsibility to vote.

The presidential election of 2008 was termed ‘historic’ in terms of the percentage of the electorate that voted: it was approximately 63 percent of the voting eligible population. We have in recent memory been electing Presidents of this country, leaders of the free world, with less than a true majority of 30 percent of the country.

It is hard to fathom how the freest people in history can hope to spread that gift to the rest of the world if they make a conscious decision to not defend it.

So when we do not learn the lessons, that freedom cannot be gained without giving voice to that desire, and that it can be lost in the same manner we put into tenuous play our historical place  as the leading voice for democratic self rule in the world: we cannot, must not, remain silent in maintaining our own freedom.

Someone, somewhere, TODAY, is giving up their life for their descendants to have the possibility of our freedoms.

A lesson for and from  history we must learn and never forget.

The Political Act of Cowardice

The concurrent legislative tussles in Wisconsin and in Washington D.C. both this past week and undoubtedly in this upcoming week should be of grave concern to the citizens who have elected the individuals responsible for the current state of the nation, from both the state and federal perspectives.

First, a specific line from a speech given by Edmund Burke, a contemporary and political influence of the founders, to the electors of Bristol on November 3^rd, 1774 should give the electorate pause with respect to their representatives, as it is as relevant today as it was when originally delivered:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

We are not a true democracy but a democratic republic, and as such, we elect representatives to engage in the business of government on our behalf. The populace at large need not concern themselves with the minutiae involved in such an enterprise: the social contract between the government and the governed is implicit in its foundation that the elected officials will do no harm to the country. There are of course many methods and manners to accomplish certain national goals, and therein should lay the debate.

This nation is now facing truly historic financial distress. Wisconsin has become the microcosm and prism through which these issues are viewed. The nation looks for calm, reasoned approaches to resolve this overriding issue of national security.  The Congress has the detailed information necessary to do this; the nation as a whole does not. The Congress has the authority to course correct the ship of state as needed. These individuals have been entrusted with the safety and security of this great nation, for ourselves and out posterity.

It is becoming evident that said trust may have been seriously misplaced.

The political rancor from Washington D.C. & Wisconsin this past week and for the week ahead has been nothing but diatribes eyed towards gaining political advantage and talk of a governmental shut down.

In both cases, however, the elected officials in question have opted to shun their responsibilities and flee, demonstrating nothing short of cowardice when leadership is mandated. The Congress will not be able to tend to these immediate financial concerns as this is the week they are closed for Presidents Day.

 The irony of that particular reality is not lost on the American people.

Concurrently, certain state senators in Wisconsin have fled the state, assuring the absence of a quorum, with the intent of forcing that the business of the state government be driven down to its knees: they have collectively taken their ball and gone missing.

Neither set of elected officials are demonstrating nothing but that they are charlatans to the offices they hold.

The second point is a simple one for the electorate to weigh as they ponder the wisdom of electing those individuals currently in office: with minor variations, elected officials take the following oath:

‘I do solemnly swear {or affirm} that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God’.

Given their conscious decisions to forgo their sworn obligations and responsibilities, can it be fairly argued that they are fulfilling their oath of office?

The Ongoing Lessons of Liberty

The Declaration of Independence begins with the words “When in the course of human events…”; these are profound and prophetic words that gain more relevance as the world increasingly becomes a smaller and more interconnected place. The recent events in Egypt continue the need to remain vigilant of the intent of the founders when they began what was deemed the ‘grand experiment’ – the democratic institution of American self-rule.

It must be made clear that what people around the world are clamoring for is far more than what is being defined as ‘democracy’, purported to be realized as attaining the right to vote. This past century saw a historic number of dictators and despots hold what were deemed ‘elections’, elections in which they invariably won almost unanimously, sometimes with but token opposition. Declaring that elections will be held is not freedom and it is not what should be heralded as a successful end unto itself. We declared our independence in 1776; it took a war with England and thirteen years hence before we established a functional government. It took much debate and great thought and compromise to establish the Constitution that would bring life to the idea of self-rule. The point cannot be overstated – we are not a democracy. We are a democratic republic.  We do not as individuals decide the course of our country. We choose representatives to act on our behalf within the government. We fought a civil war and won two world wars to protect and preserve those principles, and we should never be dismissive of those realities.

We should encourage American-style self determination  wherever we can; we must avoid choosing ‘democracy’ and ‘elections’ as the terms of a belief that such exportation of the American ideal has been successfully transmitted.

When a society declares its rights to self determination, we should hold ourselves up proudly as a country that has for more than two hundred and twenty years been the defining beacon and role model for free peoples everywhere.

We cannot present ourselves as ‘humbled’ by the actions of a people demonstrating and demanding their inalienable rights; we should stand proud and remind ourselves that we as a country are the first and best example of how self-determination and self-rule can succeed, flourish and prosper.

If we choose to in any way diminish that standing, we shall put into peril the true declaration of those yearning to be free:

“…in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

These are the lessons we should understand from what has happened in Egypt and what will invariably spread throughout the oppressed people of the world.

Beware the Baneful Effects of Party

There is an axiom that holds that if you repeat something often enough it will become accepted as a truth, regardless of its actual veracity. One of the more glaring examples of this, in the context of American democracy, is the general belief that this country is based upon a two-party political system.

This perpetually perpetrated fraud of fact is simply not true.

President Washington, in his famous farewell address, addressed his concerns to the young nation of the “baneful effects of the spirit of party… it serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration”. Our first chief executive feared for the embryonic republic; he had seen first hand the splintering among those in his administration as they had jockeyed for positions of political power.

There is no language, explicit or implicit, delineating that the United States government will be divided between and amongst merely two political parties. The impending danger to our nation is that the two dominant parties have so ensnared the election process to their advantage that any viable alternative is deemed a “third party” candidate, and they decry the populace of ‘throwing away their vote” on such candidates. They have developed and maintain an election system so byzantine and outright ridiculous they have in effect inoculated themselves from any real assault on their political power.  In a country of 300 million plus, it is ridiculous to believe that there are but two elective options from which to choose a representative leadership. A thriving democratic republic must embrace the full spectrum of ideas, and people to speak in support of those beliefs.     We cannot accept that we must choose from a menu which consists only of one item from column A, and only one item from column B.

The founders specifically wrote the Constitution to be free of and to avoid all manner of political dogma; we engage in it at our own peril.  

The Constitution speaks only that each chamber shall choose its officers. It makes no mention of political appointees; yet we blindly accept that ‘majority leaders’, ‘minority leaders’ ‘whips’ and such are and should be part of the official government. They are not, but are compensated for these additional ‘duties’, responsibilities that serve only the party, not the people.

If we are to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” we must be ever vigilant against accepting blindly what we are told is fact about our democratic republic. The Constitution is available to any citizen to read and comprehend. Democracy needs to be thought of as a verb; to accept it as a passive term is to risk    falling into a default form of two party political autocracy.

This is what President Washington expressed concern over, and the warning we must heed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Beware The Corrupting Influence Of Status

One of the truly amazing facets of American government, and American democracy overall is the lack of a ruling class, or more specifically a ‘legislative class’. The founders and the framers understood the fragility of self rule, but believed that if given the opportunity, citizen-legislators would be amongst the basic bulwarks that would guide their audacious experiment known as the United States of America. The architects of our Constitution also had first hand knowledge of the baneful effects of a ruling class; America would not become home to earls, dukes, counts and their ilk. The House of Representatives was conceived as the ‘people’s house’. Citizens would come for a while, serve their country, bring voice to the concerns of their communities, and then after a few terms, return home to their lives and give the opportunity, responsibility  and privilege to another citizen to do their part. The Senate was designed as the more deliberative body, the place that would necessitate long and thoughtful debate.  It was believed  that the more successful members of their respective communities would be asked to serve, to handle the larger issues that faced the country. These senators would serve a term or two, and then return to their profitable lives back in the private sector. This is why there is specific language in the Constitution relative to no member of the government holding any title from another government, and why there was no language about ‘term limits’. The concept of professional politicians was anathema to them; it made no logical sense.

The concern today is that representatives seem to feel the need to be addressed not as ‘congressman’, or ‘senator’, but if applicable to be addressed by whatever political title they have; chairman, majority leader’, etc. What is even of greater concern is that they seem to feel that such titles should follow them after their terms are over. Former speakers, senators, etc. appear on current media outlets with their titles intact. This is dangerous, for it shows them to believe they have some level of birthright to the positions they were given by the American people. The most glaring example of this was Senator Barbara Boxers’ response to being addressed as ‘ma’am’ by a general giving testimony before a senate committee. She chided the general and told him point blank that she should be addressed as ‘senator’, on her belief that she had worked hard to achieve the title. ‘Ma’am’ is a show of respect within the military, and represents deference to an individual in authority. A United States senator should know that.

Demanding to be addressed with a political title is a dangerous step towards establishing a ‘ruling class’, and Americans should be wary of allowing it to continue.

There does not need to be a Constitutional amendment on term limits to address this issue. The electorate merely needs to thank their representative for their service, give them a firm slap on the back for a job well done, a firm handshake wishing them well, and then show them the door out of the peoples’ representative office. 

‘We The People’ is the beginning of the Constitution for a reason.

The Budget Process - how much are the paper clips?

And so begins again the nonsensical annual practice known as the congressional budget cutting process, an oxymoron if ever there was one. It ultimately does little more than demonstrate and highlight the absolute ineptitude and chicanery inherent in the officials currently entrusted with the nations purse strings. Only in government would a program that was intended to receive a ten percent increase have that endowment cut to only a five percent increase would it be trumpeted as a five percent cut. Members from all facets of the political spectrum gravely intone in front of an array of microphones that cutting entire programs would result in various stages of Armageddon for that programs recipients. The final budget proposal is then heralded as a triumph of responsible spending, and that the hard choices have been made to put the nation on the road to financial health.

As the saying goes – hardee har har.

This process has now resulted in a fourteen trillion dollar debt. Obviously, changes need to be made, and the changes are both easily attainable, and ultimately practical. Just ask any small business owner.

There is little doubt amongst the electorate that there is sufficient income generated in this country to provide for the essential processes of government. What no elected official has yet to present, however, is the actual operating cost of government. Any small business owner can tell you exactly what their operating costs are, from their utility costs to how much they spend on paper clips. This critical information is what affords them the opportunity to achieve the intended goal of being profitable. Any business that does not know their operating costs is not long for the yellow pages. Yet nobody in government looks at what it actually costs to run the government. The budgetary process merely looks at cutting or adding to each year’s allocations, without looking to see the true bottom line. Politicians talk of budget surpluses; how can there be a ‘surplus’ when there is debt to be paid, interest on that debt to be serviced? The actual concept of a budget ‘surplus’ should be an affront to the electorate; it is THEIR money. Any money the government does not need to function should be returned to that electorate. The budget can easily be brought into balance, but what that balance truly is must first be determined by obtaining the facts relative to the operation of the bureaucracy.

The government needs to know what it is spending in paper clips.

It is the peoples’ money; not the governments.

Follow the Campaign Money Trail

The one common lament amongst our elected officials is their hue and cry of the need to spend so much time fundraising for their campaigns, which they claim draws them away from their truly  important work of the peoples business. They create, (and then immediately circumvent) arcane and pointless rules and regulations collectively known as ‘campaign finance reform’, despairing that their search for employment must, of necessity and ‘transparency’ ultimately be publicly funded by the very people who bestow upon them the sacred honor of public service. There is of course a more principled response to this issue, and one that mandates the direct involvement by the American people, in order to restore the honor and integrity of the democratic republic. The recent Supreme Court ruling that established entities  to have unfettered access to election financing was based upon their reading of the Constitution, and so to properly resolve this issue, the rare but crucially necessary act of amending the Constitution must be undertaken at the state level, as it is improbable and implausible to believe that the Congress will act on itself in this matter. The constitutional amendment needs to be succinctly and specifically worded. It should address the issue is this manner: only those individuals who can enter a voting booth and cast a legal ballot shall be allowed to contribute any amount of their personal wealth as they may choose to the candidate, political party, and cause of their choice. Such allocation of monies may only be disseminated to candidates who are on the donors’ specific district ballot. This wording will insure that the individual may only donate to their specific state assemblyman, United States congressman and senator. It will forbid unions, pacs, lobbyists and their ilk from controlling the agenda by the sheer volume of cash they donate. It will allow people to fund  but one national election- the presidential election. It removes all the stress from our officials to fundraise in all areas of the country, and will force them to stay connected to their own constituents.