Arrogant Power, Angry People

In a republic leaders are sensitive to the desires and interests of the people but will not be stampeded by the mob. Democracy can be the mob. In an oligarchy the leaders fear the mob and ignore the wisdom and desires of the people. It is apparent why it is so difficult to maintain an effective and legitimate republic. The leaders are tempted by power and fearful of a populace that may become unruly and threatening. Because of their morbid fear of the people, the political leadership continually seeks to purchase the affection of their constituents by using the public treasury to purchase their goodwill. The political process is reduced to a series of transactions that have no basis in principle and no moral justification in reality. As a republic becomes more “democratic,” the buy/sell relationship between the political class and the governed reaches a fever pitch. This enhanced democratization is advanced by professional peoples’ representatives who undertake to advance the desires of clusters of constituencies. They interact freely with the political class and serve as ready conduits between the elected officials and the citizens. They are advocates. They are association or industry representatives. They are lobbyists.

Although the existence of lobbying as a necessity for advancing the concerns of various organized groups and policy advocates seems to distort the governing process, their presence is quite natural when a system morphs from a republic into a democracy. In a small democratic group each individual can make her or his voice heard over the din in the room. As the democratic universe grows larger and more removed from the citizens, it becomes vital for competing interests to gain access to the policy and law makers. While it is an obvious development, it does create an insular layer of unaccountability between the governed and their government. The lack of clear-cut responsibility yields a political class that has no personal stake in the consequences of their regulating and legislating. The most influential feedback they receive is from the lobbyists who may temper their concerns or disagreements in order to curry favor for the next issue that confronts their clients. Politicians, therefore, may assume that their actions and wisdom are infallible because there is very little clamoring discontent surrounding their decisions. They become arrogant….which is natural given the personality types that are attracted to stagecraft and self promotion. The political class begins to believe that it is entitled to rule because it knows best what is good for the nation and beneficial for the people. The system allows no one to get close enough to the would-be emperor to tell him or her that he or she is wearing no clothes.

For a time the people are contented with the greater democratization of their political process. They relish the opportunities to vote on issues large and small. Their sense of empowerment grows larger as they witness the various and numerous polls that test the temper of the people. They voluntarily join organizations and industry groups who share their views and goals. They sense that they may have an advantage over their lowly brethren who are not so actively engaged. Reality begins to ooze into the consciousness of the citizens as they begin to understand that the political system has become a never ending process of advantage/disadvantage. Just when a favorable rule or law is implemented that resolves their issue….a competing interest promotes another less favorable alternative. The stakes get higher with each round of favorable versus unfavorable governing and the citizen begins to detect that the process has spun out of control. He or she becomes uneasy and either becomes more active in the lobbying groups or totally withdraws from the dysfunctional process. The citizen begins to suspect that the essence of democracy is the ability to out maneuver the others who seek power and influence. The goal is to be a wolf and not a lamb when the dinner menu is discussed.

Because of the ratcheting demands of the various groups who see their power rise and fall, the various members of the constituent groups slowly begin to understand that the nation, its political class and its honor have all been corrupted. No one group is ever completely satisfied with its slice of the political pie and the slices tend to become increasingly smaller and less tasty. A sour and bitter sliver of a bloated impersonal polity does little to satisfy the gnawing hunger of unfulfilled dreams. Trading favors and buying votes are never permanent but are mere interludes until a better offer comes along. The discontented people discover others who share their views, and together they discuss new recipes for creating a better pie….large enough for all to share….tasty enough for all to enjoy. They meet, they study, they propose and they reject as they search for the ideal ingredients to create the perfect pie. And then……someone remembers that Grandma’s pie was the best they’d ever eaten. They found her recipe, and lo!, it worked.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Balanced but not Equal

Until recent times every American student has learned the axiom of United States’ constitutional government that our 3-headed federal construct is limited by checks and balances built into the system. The three branches—executive, legislative and judicial—exercise certain powers and oversights that in theory offset one another. Many people err, however, when they consider the branches equal. They are not. For example the shoe and the foot are both larger than the pebble, but the tiny stone in the boot can make walking an uncomfortable undertaking. Two entities do not have to be equal in order for one to judiciously restrict the other. The three federal branches have different functions, constitutional powers, and responsibilities. They are not equal. One of the great distortions of the Twentieth Century was the emergence of the courts as power players in the national arena. Their portfolio for cases brought before them is to determine if matters of law were applied correctly so that plaintiffs and defendants could rely on a just system.

My description of the legal system will not be found in Black’s or Blackstone. It is simply my interpretation of The Constitution of the United States of America and its recognition of the necessity for a system of courts to oversee disputes between citizens and confrontations between citizens and governments. This piece is a perception rather than a précis. In my view there appear to be three primary determinants for identifying the relative power of a branch of government: the constituency, its role, available remedies for enforcing its actions. For example, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of Defense is a cabinet level position in the Executive Branch. The people and the various electors choose the President who appoints the Secretary of Defense…subject to Senate confirmation. The House of Representatives is responsible for funding the military, but is not constrained by the desires of the President or his SecDef. In essence, the President has, subject to the War Powers Act and posse comitatus limitations, the entire military apparatus plus various federal agencies with police power to enforce the law. The Congress does hold the “power of the purse,” and the Courts have the force of decree but must rely on voluntary compliance because the courts have no police or military power.

Historically, in my view, there have been two great shifts in the balance of power among the three branches. The 1803 case, Marbury vs. Madison, established the notion of judicial review and the Supreme Court’s authority for determining the constitutionality of legislation and executive actions. Prior to this ruling the Court was viewed as a mere dispute-resolution mechanism. The other action that I believe transformed the balance of power was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment which altered the method for selecting U.S. senators from being appointed by their respective state legislatures to direct popular vote by the citizens of each state. The former constituents for senators were THE STATES. The amendment changed their obligations and loyalties to a more populism-oriented constituency. Surely there are additional developments that have altered the delicate balance envisioned by the Framers, but I suspect these two would make the “Power Shifting Hall of Fame.”

Even now with the additional power for the Supreme Court and the alteration of the senators’ fidelity, I believe the House of Representatives remains as the most powerful portion of the federal government … if the country follows constitutional law. Controlling the financial elements for most of the federal government should give the House extraordinary leverage for determining the policies and direction of the nation. As the direct representatives of the people, the House can protect the peoples’ interests from encroachment by the other branches and the bureaucracy. Clearly the House has failed in a number of ways. The House of Representatives with agreement by the Senate has ignored or abrogated some of its constitutional duties by transferring them to other governmental or private sector entities thus minimizing its oversight capabilities. The House has ignored its fiscal responsibilities by over spending and through massive borrowing to fund unconstitutional programs, departments, agencies and bureaus.

We have had inter-branch faceoffs in the past as one branch or another sought to increase its power or to preserve its niche. Some have been ugly, and others were subtle, but the bottom line is that the 3 branches of our federal government are NOT equal. If our federal government were operating in a constitutionally pure manner, the House would be the most powerful entity in the federal government because of its fiscal control. It’s true that the Congress cannot lower the pay of the sitting federal judges, but they can abolish and/or create federal circuits and judgeships at will. This, in effect, allows the Congress to rein in a runaway judiciary. Congress can refuse to fund various and sundry executive branch department, and thus, render them useless. Some people fear the power of the purse that is given to the “Peoples’ House,” but a dispute or confrontation between branches of government is to be preferred to all of them vigorously defending the government’s interests…..as they do now. We need balance. We do not need equality among the branches. In fact we need balance and counterbalance.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Radio this week: Tue. & Wed., 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD

                              Friday, 3-6:00pm for Brian Wilson, www.wspd.com

     

Defining and Weaving

The previous three columns have examined the foundational tools that are necessary for restoring our nation to its constitutional government, but more importantly to its constitutional roots. We have witnessed for the past century or more our political leaders’ failure to honor and defend our constitutional principles. We have no reason to believe that they will have a series of epiphanies and move to the light from their locations on the dark side. Many have claimed to be in favor of “smaller” government, but I suspect that if they were grilled under harsh lights with their hands restrained and blindfolds in place, they would admit that they believe the basic Constitution of the United States is too severe and extreme for 21^st Century citizens. So, the education of America must include many allies in the political class as well as the mass of uninformed and ignorant citizens.

For the past two or so years many groups have assumed the task of educating their members and communities about the Constitution, the Declaration and other founding documents. The educational cornerstone going forward must be the “relevance” of those documents for our present time. Relevance as point of view should never be allowed to undermine the purity and the intent of our national heritage, rather relevance should be defined to indicate how the enduring wisdom of the Founders and Framers developed a structure that can withstand the various trends and feel-good schemes of every generation. The keystone of the educational movement must be the absolute principles included, enclosed and embedded in the documents, debates and decisions of the activists during the Founding and the leaders of the Framing.

Although many changes have occurred in our nation (e.g. more states, larger population) since the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, some things have not changed thus underscoring the legitimacy of the document. Some people thirst for power and seek to use it to bend others to their wills. Others are constantly on the prowl to discover opportunities for tapping the resources of others. Some seek to perpetually hold office by distributing the wealth of workers into the hands of non-productive voters. These types of behaviors and attitudes have existed since before our founding, but the proponents of them have become more brazen as time has drifted further away from the passion of our beginning. Human behavior and human desires are relatively constant from era to era. The additions of laptops, cell phones, HDTV, jet travel, air conditioning and robotics haven’t changed human nature or political calculations.

The Founders and Framers were not strangers to human foibles. Indeed, nearly every flaw in human development could be found among them. Their collective genius sprung from the realization that imperfect people would be tempted to pervert the most liberty-friendly government design in human history. As a result, they forged a template for governing that limited the federal government’s impact on the freedoms and daily lives of the governed. The underlying advantage of such a structure is that it could possibly tamper the desires of people to seize the levers of governance because of the relative powerless nature of the federal entity. Nevertheless for the past two and a quarter centuries and especially for the past 100 years, power-hungry politicians and their do-gooder cohorts have corrupted and distorted our finely balanced government. Now instead of sovereign states that join together to provide for a common defense and other national necessities, the federal government has assumed preeminence and dictates to the states as it continues to grow and assume more power over states and citizens. All three branches of the carefully crafted design have assumed power and oversight far beyond what the Framers envisioned. The delicate balance of power between the branches has become a consuming race for power over the lives of the people as each branch seems to consistently find new ways for abusing and exploiting the people. Many citizens are wondering what happened to their inalienable rights, and the states have become mere identifiers for mailing and zip code directories. 

Defining objectives and steps are vital for starting the process of recapturing the government, the nation designed by the Framers. Federal government power (and state power too) must be severely curtailed and constrained. All three branches must undergo radical dismemberment and reductions. One branch should be chosen as the beta, and that would be Congress. No candidate should be promoted or supported unless she or he pledges absolute fidelity to the Constitution and her or his oath of office. During the vetting process candidates should demonstrate that they have a full understanding and familiarity with the Constitution, the Declaration and the underlying principles. Candidates must be unwaveringly committed to individual liberty, federalism (the sovereignty of states) and reducing national government to its constitutional role as literally defined by the Constitution of the United States. Any candidate who falters on any portion of the knowledge and commitment requirements should receive either an “unfavorable,” a “not supported,” or an “actively oppose” resolution from the vetting group. The results should be published with justifications for the designation. Another reason for choosing Congress as the first line of education and recapture is that with the two-year cycle in the House, the turnover process can be implemented more quickly than it can in other branches or chambers. Vetting organizations must have the courage to reject incumbents who are “generally OK.” Our nation is in economic, fiscal and political peril. There is no more time available for “close enough” candidates who are NOT committed to plan laid out by the Founders and the Framers. It’s time to stop pussyfooting. The time has come to either commit to saving the nation or to surrender it to socialist statism.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Next week: Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com

Crisis Creation

If you have been on this Earth for any significant time, you have probably and painfully learned that there is a difference between thoughtful consideration and procrastination. Dithering does not qualify as deliberation. Certainly prudence demands that we examine our options to determine which one will yield the most favorable outcome. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the term, “paralysis by analysis,” wherein over-examination of a difficult decision leads to a failure to act or respond. These scenarios are common for most of us, and we recognize the pitfalls that arise because of our inability to respond. These are some of the rules of life, but in certain quarters the rules are suspended. Take career politicians for example.

Most professional politicians suffer from an aversion to critical decision making. As you know, on an issue that is prominent and divided, the politician risks annoying or infuriating a large portion of his constituents no matter how she or he may vote. As a result, many crises in our affairs of state arise because of the career politicians’ refusal to deal with an issue promptly and forthrightly.  Issues become problems that beget crises that cause nervous handwringing and intense arm twisting. Generally, the politician succumbs to expediency and meekly follows the leadership to a minimalist response to the moment to escape the volcanic wrath of the electorate. Thus, the “can” of concern is kicked further down the road only to rise again at a later time with consequences far greater.

Abscessed characters and absences of integrity are too common among the careerist political class. The most self-centered among them weigh every decision on the scales of electoral expediency. In some respects the self-serving types are preferable to the indecisive cowards because their positions are so predictable. Whatever vote or pledge has the greatest potential for maintaining or advancing the politician’s career is the one that is taken or cast. The concept of a principled vote or position is alien to the class of politician who is consumed by opportunism. It is the expedient politician who has helped to elevate his class on a par with used car salesmen and snake oil peddlers in the popular views of the people.

Another factor besides the personalities and preferences of the politicians for the sense of crisis that seems pervasive is the sheer size of government…at all levels. Their consistent expansion and overreaching for the past century has resulted in bloated monstrosities that are ineffective and impossible to manage. Factor in the overlap and redundancy elements of many governments, and we often find ourselves in crisis mode because of competing bureaucracies or sectors of interest that are unaddressed because the various bureaucracies remain stuck in “turf-protection” gear. Large sluggish enterprises are inefficient and ineffective. Large public sector institutions are much worse than their private sector cohorts because it is nearly impossible to dismiss incompetent or lazy workers. So the massive organizational structure of government is a primary contributor to the frequency of crises in our public discourse.  Government agencies often overreach and frequently under perform. Either of those response modes could germinate a crisis.

Closely associated with the unrestrained growth of government is its insatiable need for operating funds. With Big Brother and Nanny State gobbling more control of our lives and our commerce, the financial requirements escalate. So, it seems there is a constant crisis for funding…at all levels of government. Their incestuous relationships and complex network of grants and mandates place an increasing financial burden on the taxpayers. When the bureaucrats and political class decide that additional funding is required, they claim that a crisis is imminent, and the funds are vital for averting a catastrophe.

There are two aspects of crisis that may not have so large of a domestic human component in the chain of causation..…attack by foreign entities and a natural or commercial disaster. Time and again our government’s response to a provocation or natural disruption has been too little, too late. Often when lives were saved, it was the heroic actions of individuals---some from the public sector and others just ordinary citizens—whose actions were the most helpful and effective. We may never know what involvement government had in the generating of the crises, if any, because of foreign policy, the inadequate construction and repair of levees, unrealistic environmental restrictions that limit the building of water-breaks and dams. The point is that people, local people, respond more quickly and effectively in many cases than does the government-controlled response agency. Does the memory of thousands of unused FEMA trailers for the Gulf Coast ring a bell? Many of those trailers were sources of breathing problems because the gaseous releases from the interiors….typical.

In every crisis for the nation, governments play an instrumental role. Sometimes government’s failure to act initiates the problem or makes it worse. On other occasions government’s response is inadequate or inappropriate and may exacerbate the problem. Finally some issues may be precipitated by government so as to assume more power and control over the population. In summary, big government and crisis appear to be synonymous. Friends, we have a crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel advises “we should not let a crisis go to waste.” Continue putting the heat on them, jump on your pony, Patriot, and let’s get control of this monstrosity.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or      www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com