Missing the Message

          Upon completion of man's first powered flight, the Wright Brothers dashed off to share their joy with their sister Catherine. Wilbur and Orville sent the telegram "We have successfully flown 120 feet. We will be home for Christmas." Catherine immediately rushed off to show the telegram to the editor of their city newspaper. The editor gave it a quick glance and remarked "So the boys are coming home for Christmas."

          It is easy to filter out an important message. As another holiday season winds down, clerics and Jimmy Stewart once again attempt to remind us to consider what is important. I would encourage our gentle readers to reflect on what is valuable and meaningful in our own daily lives. These things are so easy to filter out. Are we simply hauling stones, or are we building a cathedral?

          It may be self-evident that I am a student of history. While we should be informed by history, we also should be aware that our collective choices are shaping the course of our nation and are producing a legacy for future generations.

          Amidst the statuary of the original House chamber, Clio, the Muse of History, writes in the Book of History as her chariot inexorably surges forward. In the 1830s, someone placed a clock at the base of the elevated form. It still keeps accurate time. Legislators were meant to glance up to see the present time and for a moment consider what was being written into the Book of History.

          We too are part of history, and we too will be judged by history. How will this time look in times to come? Please pause for a moment during this holiday season to reflect on what is important, what has been built, what we have built, and what we would want to build, now and for future generations of Americans. Their future is in our present hands.

New Look at Newt

          Over the last few weeks, I have carefully listened to both Newt & Mitt (odd noun names). I was pleased that these guys have moved beyond the staged b.s. called debates and subsequent sound bytes and are doing 60 & 90 minute town halls. I have always thought Newt to be "eccentric" but creative. Like a songwriter, most of what you create is crap, but sometimes you get a real gem. I have always thought Newt was erratic but entertaining. I've been told he's difficult to work with. However, he valued history and solutions, both passions I share. I thought Newt was a better thinker internationally than domestically. Then I listened to these two candidates at length.

          While there are directions and policies that concern me, I am increasingly impressed with Newt. Not so much with Mitt. This is not an endorsement, but rather a self-discovery. I slammed Newt in recent posts and need to retract/ clarify some assumptions.

Things that impressed me about Newt:

1.     Well grounded in history and the foundational beliefs of the Founding Fathers

2.     Has a respectable grasp of foreign policy. I watched a 90 debate between Newt and Huntsman and was very impressed with the cogent, adult conversation that was held.

3.     Has some interesting and novel solutions to domestic issues. Newt seems to listen to the other side and adopt what he believe will work, then gives credit where its due. He has very specific and clear solutions to address economic growth, job creation, energy & infrastructure renewal.

4.     He's VERY specific about his policies and course of action, often talking them out day by day concerning steps he would take. His thinking is more specific than any other politician I have ever seen.

5.     He's a big picture thinker. Most of our national problems are higher order and connected to one another. Newt expresses these connections and states solutions addressing multiple issues.

6.     He has a very aggressive, decisive leadership style. This is particularly refreshing after the last few guys we've had at the helm. Newt comes on a bit strong, kind of a "here's where I'm going...get on board or get out of my way" style of leadership. I'm concerned that he may try to aggregate more power and expand the Executive branch and diminish other branches. Not a very Founding Father value if that's the case. We could then call him High Lord Newt. I think I will copyright the phrase.

          Lest one think I now have a bromance going with the Newtster, I find him intriguing but am cautious of him as well. I am unclear as to his authenticity or personal agenda. Since he is a self-proclaimed hawk, I am concerned about him involving us in more costly foreign adventures. At this point, I'll keep my ears and mind open (and probably snag a few of his solutions).   

          Whoever is next at the Presidential helm, it is crucial to open new channels of access and communication with the American People. People also need to be steered away from the bitching/ whining which passes for discourse. Bitching and whining reflect a frustrated, powerless populace. People need to be moved into solution space. People need to create and own national solutions.

          While Government can establish a policy framework/climate and advocate a direction, actual innovation and implementation comes from the "private sector", i.e. the American People. Renewal must simultaneously occur from both top down and bottom up. If the People don't help create and own the change, the change won't occur. Our former/ current solutions are too siloed and inadequate. We need breakthrough thinking to produce breakthrough solutions.
Fortune cookie say: Think differently and create a new destiny.

Assault on our Liberties

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." --Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777

          Our current Congress is truly gifted at expending great energy and effort to defend why they're not reaching a compromise. The media machines ensure that partisan supporters fight and defend these guys not doing their jobs. Our nation is built on compromise. The first (of two) major objections to NOT signing and producing the Constitution was that it didn't protect individual liberties. It had no Bill of Rights. No portection of civil liberties, no signature, no Constitutional government formed. A gentleman named Ben Franklin suggested that if everyone signed now, a Bill of Rights would be added by a specific date. The first nation created by the rule of law was born. That's why Ben Franklin is on money.

          The signing of the Constitution was an act of faith and trust. We currently have little of those qualities in Washington. This first major compromise was a big one compared to our current procedural and ideological squabbles. I point out this first major compromise concerned the protection of civil liberties. This blog concerns the current and historical context for the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties. 

          Following the death of the North Korean dictator, we saw North Korean people weeping in the streets. A CIA analyst pointed out that if they didn't weep in the streets, that would be considered a crime against the State. Who determines who is an enemy of the State? Congress? The Courts? The President? Dick Cheney? The State determines if you are an enemy of the State.

          We don't think of America as a county where its citizens can be arrested, detained or killed on the whim of the Government. Sounds like North Korea. However, two weeks ago, President Obama again affirmed that any "terrorist" or enemy of the State could be killed by the US Government, whether they were a US citizen or not or living in the US or not. Killing Americans without due process is a recent Justice Department position but reflects the ongoing erosion of our civil liberties. Their legal reasoning and internal memos have not yet been released for public scrutiny. For more on this policy, see the Atlantic article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

          Some gentle readers have expressed dismay concerning the Defense Authorization Act (S.1867). If signed into law, any American citizen branded as a suspected "terrorist" could be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial. The hapless political prisoners would not be covered by Constitutional protection or due process, and be placed into the hands of the military to mete out justice. It's a Rumsfeld wet dream. Here's the version of S1867 that passed the Senate (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112VMFIo1::). Note section 1031 & 1032.

          Sounds very Orwellian? It is. Why are we moving in this direction? What will we do to stop this assault on our liberty?

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

          Our nation was once an exceptional shining example of privacy rights and the rule of law. That was before torture and secret prisons were deemed necessary for our safety. Over the last few decades, our Constitutional protections have eroded alarmingly. We might exemplify the assault on our liberties in terms of eroding personal privacy. Why do we permit our privacy protection to erode? We are changing as a people. Our expectation of security and privacy are diminishing each generation. We are under increasingly surveillance throughout our day as we spend our time in our cars, at the bank or convenience store, in restaurants, bars, and corporate cubicles. We have come to expect and are even comforted by such surveillance. This change in our society has come quickly. Are we aware of these changes or their implications to our society?

          Children going to school are run through metal detectors and monitored in their classrooms and even on the bus. What is the effect of continual surveillance on our children?

          Surveillance changes behavior and speech. Surveillance has a tremendous psychological impact. On the school bus, only one camera in the fleet is actually recording, but behavior is changed on all the buses. How would your speech and behavior change if you knew you were being monitored and recorded? What  if you knew (or thought) you were being recorded when you went out with your friends, had a fight at home, or made a phone call? Set a recorder down at a table with your buddies and watch them change (you don't even need tape in it).

          If you defend surveillance practices, recognize that your standard of privacy and liberty is vastly different from Americans a few decades ago. Recognize that a monitored society was not the intention of our Founding Fathers. When we live in a society where we are complacent with monitoring, what society is produced? When we are reassured and want to be under surveillance, will we be even aware of the erosion of our liberties, much less mourn their passing?

So who is trying to erode our liberties? Obama? Congress (both Parties)? The Courts? All the above. We will examine how this came to be.

Who will safeguard and defend our liberties? Obama? Congress? The Courts? Nope. We shall examine why.  

"It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power." -- John Adams, 1788

          Some readers might immediately remind us that we have Fourth Amendment protection and the Courts protect our liberties. Let's be clear that the Founding Fathers never imagined our current State responses to existential threats such as Communism and "terrorism". Does the Constitution protect personal liberties and privacy? Yes, to a limited extent. Historically, our liberties and privacy have remained intact because the Government didn't have the technological capability to physically monitor us. This has changed.

          Over the years, the Supreme Court decoupled two key phrases in the Fourth Amendment which sent us on a forty year cycle of erosion of our liberties. The principle of "warrant" was decoupled from "reasonable", creating a very low standard for issuing warrants and the notion of "reasonable probable cause" which enables surveillance without a warrant. Because of this decoupling, most current surveillance is conducted without a warrant.

          How did this decoupling play out in our history? For most of our American experience, most citizens had lower expectation of privacy. Until WWII, one could drive right up to the White House door. Most people didn't experience invasion of privacy and just wanted the Government to stay away from them. The Government needed a warrant to do otherwise. In 1928, Olmstead vs. US led to the Trespass policy, which defined privacy relative to a location. So the Government needed a warrant only if they physically wanted to enter your house. The Court's interpretation of privacy drove technological advances in non-invasive surveillance, such as eavesdropping, wiretapping, laser reflection, and parabolic microphones, Much surveillance abuse frolic ensued.

          In 1967, the Supreme Court rendered the Katz verdict, which stated that it was the person, not the property, that was safeguarded by the Constitution. This was well and good, except the courts defined privacy as a person's expectation of privacy. One expects to be private at home and in one's car. However, as surveillance increases, individual expectation of privacy diminishes, which expands the Government ability to monitor, which diminishes expectations of privacy....and so forth. Collective passivity is the byproduct of privacy erosion, making reclaiming our rights that much harder. Expect a collective yawn from this blog.

          Both Congress and Obama are expending on decades of policies eroding civil liberties and privacy. This is converged with an increasing technological capability to carry out society wide surveillance and erode society wide privacy expectations. For instance, the Obama Justice Department contended before the Supreme Court that American citizens have no expectations of privacy when they are traveling or in public. The Court upheld their argument. So GPS trackers can be placed on vehicles without a warrant. See how easy it is to lose your liberties?  

Future Trends

          Look for the rise of anonymity. As genuine privacy vanishes under fish tank scrutiny, people's illusory comfort will lie in becoming a different fish. 

          Look for the continued accumulation of power by the Executive Branch and an assault on an independent judiciary. This week I observe Presidential candidates who wish to abolish courts and send Federal marshals after judges because they don't like how they ruled. I refer these people to Madison and the judiciary he created. After the first Congress, Franklin was stopped on the street by an old lady and asked what they have created. Franklin replied "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."

          As we run out of foreign wars to fight, we will soon bring the technology to the home front and have a war on privacy. Expect drones, micro-RFID tags and other spy tech stuff to become an everyday part of life. The Chicago District Attorney is fighting the State for the right of private citizens to film police officers actions, while Chicago has over 10,000 cameras monitoring its citizens. In addition, all the practices that the US routinely unpleasantly uses on foreign shores to deprive life and liberty will come home to roost.

          Just as we did with the military, national surveillance will be contracted to private companies. People who are comforted that the Government is watching over them (why?) may well not realize that a contractor is tracking their daily activities. The private surveillance industry has grown exponentially over the last decade, working under the auspices of Government. This is dangerous, because while the Government needs a warrant to invade your privacy, private industry does not. Another issue is what is done with the accumulated information . Government certainly has access to this surrogate information and marketers probably will as well. All of this will take a toll on us as a nation. Psychologically, we will become a more repressed, inhibited, diminished people.

"Those who have been once intoxicated with power and have derived any kind of emolument from it can never willingly abandon it." -- Edmund Burke

          Will Government change the laws to restore our freedoms? If we believe our friend Burke, no. Congress (both Parties) are historically a threat to civil liberties rather than their defenders. Congress just passed a law enabling military imprisonment of any American suspected (not convicted or who actually did a terrorist act) of being a terrorist. A terrorist is anyone the Government says is a terrorist. The Blue/Red divide framing our political system is a sham when it comes to civil liberties. Leaders of both Parties knew about our torture policy and secret prisons and lied that they did not. The Congressional track record of both Parties has created a right-eroding trend. Having a competitive and adversarial framework is just good for business as people "get behind" their side. Incumbents may have the approval rating of the flu but they know they will be elected again. We're chumps if we think the Parties are different. Third Party anyone?  

          Our current President is a pawn to the trend of militarization of our national security and the un-accountable Homeland Security machine. This bureaucracy, like all bureaucracies, will continue to perpetuate and empower itself. All future Presidents are likely to be pawns of such trends. That said, there is no excuse for Obama as there is no excuse for Congress. When Obama signs a law, whatever it's attached to or however it's framed, which allows American citizens to be arrested without due process, that is an incredibly bad decision. Obama is particularly culpable in destroying civil liberties. He has expended the trend of the security state he inherited from Bush. He promised to veto bills that would erode civil liberties but did not. People assume he is a protector of civil liberties because he is a liberal, a black man, and a Constitutional scholar. The cult of personality associated with the Presidency has split and diluted civil liberty action in this nation. The far Right has long accused Obama of taking away their liberties. God knows why. What the Right never understood was that when the trend coupling technology, "national security" and privacy erosion began after 9/11, the destruction of our civil liberties was an inevitability, regardless of who was (or will be) in the Oval Office.

          The Supreme Court has the power to reverse the trends, but appointments are based on being liberal or conservative, not libertarian. So the Court sides with the Government against individual liberties. Can this downward spiral of freedom and privacy erosion be reversed?


"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -- Thomas Jeffferson, 1799

          Yes. The power to reverse the downward spiral is held by the Supreme Court and by the lawmakers, aka Congress (there's a comforting thought). But these guys aren't likely to change themselves. Ultimately, the ability to reverse this trend is in the hands of the People, in your hands, and in my hands. America is exceptional not just because we have rule of law or a Constitution. America is founded that certain liberties are accorded by God, not by Government. The power to govern is given to the People by God. The People loan this power to the Government, and the Government must be held accountable for this, as Mr. Jefferson eloquently advocates. This is why Americans are called citizens, and in other countries, they were called subjects. So let's be clear that the Power is from God, to the People, to the State. If any gentle reader is offended by God in the mix, take it up with the Founding Fathers in the afterlife, where I presume you will encounter both.

          There are a few immutable laws concerning civil liberties. Freedoms are easy to lose and those who took them are not inclined to give them back. Secondly, most people are not aware they have lost their liberties or how valuable those liberties were until after they are gone. Thirdly, a solution is found based on an immutable law of politics. Politicians want to keep their jobs. If millions of people adopt one issue, say oh, privacy, and make this a line Congress cannot violate, the message will be sent loud and clear.  The Government will only change when they believe they have to and I fully expect them in the alternative to try to enrich themselves and steal Power from the People.

          When we feel helpless or apathetic, as we withdraw from civil life a power vacuum is created. This vacuum will be filled by the opportunistic and self-serving. They increase as we decrease. This isn't how it is supposed to be. Our Government is built on faith. If you don't have faith in the Government, have faith in one another. Stop listening to politicians. Stop listening to 24-hour "news". Get mad as hell. Demand repeal of laws like the Defense Authorization Act. Find out who voted for it and campaign against them. Find out what is being voted on. Get off your ass and take action. Pick up the phone or write a letter to your legislator. Know your State laws as well. Use your social media. Make some noise. Get your neighbor involved. Have a revolution. Tell the Government how it should work. Pretend you're Egypt. If Presidents or Congressfolk vote to erode your rights, fire them.

          Bottom line: Our civil liberties are being stolen. This has occurred very recently due to a convergence of technology and a security state. People can stop it. People have to be awake, aware, and determined to stop it. People will stop it by forcing law makers to change how the game is played. If the People don't change the game, they will lose the ability to do so.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

Wrong Course?

          There is a good chance for regime change in Washington next fall. Many people feel the Obama boys put our country on the "wrong course". I'm not a fan of Obama's leadership ability or confident in the competence of his Administration. What's the alternative? A stacked deck of Republicans (a two Party system sucks). Harken to the ghost of Christmas future and determine if a stacked Republican government will produce a "right course" for the country.

          Former Speaker Gingrich continues his adamant advocacy of abolishing child labor laws and putting poor children to work to teach them values and thus not seek handouts. I respect Newt on his international views, but domestically, in my opinion, his views are "zany", as Newt put it self-derisively. Newt may be unaware that the Great Society Welfare State was dismantled on his watch and has not existed for two decades. 12.5% of the total US population makes less than $14,000 annually for a family of four. 16% of all seniors over 65 are in poverty. 2011 numbers indicate that one in four US children are faced with hunger. 60% of families in poverty are working, many with more than one job. 40% of households in poverty are single mothers with young children. Many of these work part time. This is at a time when competition for jobs is 5 to 1. What's worse, thousands of "middle class" families trapped in underwater mortgages, credit debt, or job loss slip into poverty every month. Current 50 million Americans live in poverty, up from 37 million three years earlier. Newt may not be aware that most families in poverty are not lolling about on the dole, but are struggling to work and survive. Newt may be unaware that what sustains cycles of poverty, according to research, is lack of mental enrichment before age 5, after which a permanently underdeveloped brain condemns the child to a life of struggle and statistical social immobility. It is through education and mental enrichment that poverty is overcome, not creating a menial labor underclass (just can't get good servants these days). What are the implications if Newt IS aware of these facts and simply advocates cake eating? In my view, the core Republican message appears out of touch with reality and the needs of 99% of Americans (maybe the 1% rich "job creators" who haven't had their taxes raised can hurry up and create some jobs). Does electing out of touch lawmakers without new solutions put us on the right course?

          I try not to comment much about the reality sideshow called the elections. However, I note much bitching and blame by the Republican candidates but my ears are tuned for innovative domestic solutions. I have heard none. We could drill for oil. Thanks Rick. Guys, you can't just be agin' things. You have to be for something. Not having solutions may be the wrong course.

          Some believe that we need Obama gone and Republicans running all the Government. The ghost of Christmas future points to Virginia, where Republicans run the State government. Their first order of business was to propose banning all abortions (HB1). They have successfully eroded access to abortion clinics statewide, and wish to advance their "cause". The link to the intro for HB1 is presented here http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB1. 

   
       While I personally advocate the right to life, the operative word is personal, as in abortion is a very personal (and gravely serious) decision. Is working diligently to ban choice the right course?

          This week, the Virginia Board of Social Services changed adoption restrictions. The State may reject adoption based on sexual orientation (gay), income, gender, age, religion (sorry Jews), and political party (can't be a registered Democrat). Sounds like an "us" trying to block an enemy "them". Doesn't sound like America to me. Is such adversarial framing the right course?

          Some would contend that voters get the Government they deserve. By voting in ideological extremists, the good people of Virginia have certainly sowed the wind. Will our nation follow course and do the same?

Rattling Sabers at Tehran

          The latest report issued by the UN IAEA sent sabers rattling around the world. It is clear many believe that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. This piece examines if acquisition of nuclear weapons is indeed Iran’s goal and what might be the implications if such weapons were acquired.

          The IAEA report states: “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” Let’s presume that the “relevant activities” are working toward building such a device. Let’s ask some questions…

What would Iran gain from possessing a nuclear device?

          Iran would be secure from attack and free to pursue regional mischief/ influence. They have kept their eyes open and noted that wingnut countries like North Korea, who proliferate nuclear secrets and have a few crude devices, are not touched. Regimes that play nice and give up nuclear aspirations, like Libya, have other outcomes.

          They also observe that if you build your facilities above ground, like Syria, they can be taken out from the air. Let’s state this plainly….It is impossible without a ground invasion to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Their hardened underground facilities are built in the heart of population centers and under important mosques. They have built multiple redundancies into their development process. A concerted bombing campaign would simply slow progress for a few years.

          It is unrealistic and probably quite unwise to assume that Western powers will lather, rinse and repeat whack-a-mole bombing raids into densely populated urban centers every two to three years. An attack should be approached with caution and deliberated with gravity. On the Iranian streets, the approval rating of the United States is the highest in the Middle East. An attack would instantly polarize the populace against us and send an army of embedded Iranian agents into action against Western targets. There would be no painless “precision strikes” here. An attack would revive a diminishing and politically bankrupt regime (imagine if the Taliban and the Kremlin had a baby). It would establish regional narratives for generations.

          What would Iran get from having a Bomb? Security from attack. Analysts suspect the Iranians have wanted security treaties for a few decades, but nobody is talking to Tehran.

          If bragging rights, “respect” and security are their psychological drivers, is it smart for them to build a Bomb? No, it would be smart for the world to know they could quickly build a Bomb. If they produced enough fissile material that they could politically leverage this belief, they could have their security without the Bomb toting baggage, as well as legally adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. The IAEA report does not contradict such a premise.

What if Iran built a Bomb? How would they use it?

          This seems a crucial question to ask before launching a first strike into a sovereign nation. Some saber-rattlers contend they would immediately bomb Israel. This is not likely as the Iranian people are not particularly anti-Semitic. Hating Israel is more an Arab/ Sunni type of thing. The average person on the street ignored Israel before the ascendance of their current colorful President, who bashed Israel to increase Iranian influence on Arab street corners.

          If they used a nuclear weapon, it would be national suicide. The Iranian regime may be homicidal, but it isn’t suicidal. Maybe they would give a nuke to terrorists? Not likely. They are traceable and there’s that whole national suicide thing.

          The major danger from an Iranian Bomb is not the use of the Bomb, but the regional destabilization and nuclear proliferation by Iran’s Arab neighbors. If you don’t want Iran to have a Bomb, you REALLY don’t want Arab countries, whose people ARE suicidal, to have one.

          So if Iran DID build a bomb, they would pretty much get what they want, security from attack. We might actually have to talk with them, like we did with other hostile nuclear powers such as China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.

          Contrast the frenzy of an impending Iranian Bomb with actual Bombs residing in Pakistan. Pakistan is our “ally”? Pakistan and North Korea are the two rogue proliferators of nuclear technology. The Pakistani people have the lowest support (12%) for the United States of any nation. Intelligence reports indicate that the S Branch of the ISI train, arm, and support the most lethal enemies to United States interests in Southern Asia. The Pakistani military and intelligence field the Taliban while obstructing their civilian government.

          Pakistan is our enemy. Why do we not fear for their nukes? The country has always been run and is currently run by a professional military. The United States pays more than a quarter of the Pakistani military budget. The military has a firm but duplicitous hand on the nukes and we know it. So no worries.

          Obviously, relations with Pakistan are complex. Our thinking towards Iran and their changing factions and power bases should reflect such  complexity as well. We need a mindshift in terms of national security. We have spent the last decade fixating on Islamic terrorism. Lat week, former Speaker Gingrich objected those questioning the linkage between terrorism and Islam. He said that would be like talking about the Soviet Union without talking about Communism. In our cartoon soundbyte mindscapes, terrorism has become the faceless existential enemy. However, the asymmetric tactic of terrorism knows no religious or political affiliation. A recent EU intelligence analysis showed that out of the 245 terrorist attacks committed in the EU in 2010, only 3 were linked to Islamic fundamentalism.

          We’ve talked only once to Iran formally, after the Republican Guard attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat. It is interesting to note that the Arabs, in particular the Saudis, are the chief advocates of an Iranian military strike. Coincidence?      

          So before we fuel the jets, we might actually want to talk with Iran. We can’t quell the source of our fear by lashing out at it. A preemptive strike based on speculation and sketchy intelligence without a clear and present danger keeps our enemies a mystery while speaking volumes about ourselves.

Is Our Government Un-American?

“We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it” ~Jefferson

          The men conceptualizing our Government had diverse and strongly held opinions. However opinionated, the Founding Fathers were adherents of Enlightenment reason to move our Nation forward in dark uncharted waters. Reason enabled compromise. Democratic governance is an act of compromise.

          Why my fixation on compromise? Our Constitution is a document of compromise. Our nation was birthed in profound compromise. The signing of the four major Revolutionary documents was steeped in compromise. While slavery was held by most people to be a moral evil, it was seen by many to be an economic reality, so this crucial issue was compromised. Representation based on State size and population was compromised. A bi-cameral legislature came about through compromise. Federal versus State rights were compromised. The lack of a Bill of Rights was compromised. The extent of Executive and Judicial powers were compromised. How voting occurred and who could vote was compromised. The ability to make treaties and raise a standing army was compromised. And this was all done by the first Congress. Our current Congress can’t seem to pass a single compromised bill. Compromise is now un-American. I contend that the inability to compromise is un-American and represents the inability or incompetence to govern.

          Both reason and compromise appear to be abandoned in our current political system. Extremists cite the virtues of the Founding Fathers but their actions are the antithesis of these virtues. Modern politics is based on ideological entrenchment and bullying.

          Let’s filibuster and obstruct the other side. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. The filibuster is un-American. The Constitution says that the Senate passes laws based on a majority vote (50%). Current Senate practices requiring more votes than a majority are un-American. There is a reason the Founding Fathers set different vote percentages in the bi-cameral legislature. These were based on reason and compromise.

          Let’s get enough seats and we’ll steam-roller our will over the opposition. Let’s get all of Congress and the President too and we’ll be unstoppable. This is not American governance. It is bullying by a majority. That is un-American.  

“Democracy is an experiment, and the right of the majority to rule is no more inherent than the right of the minority to rule; and unless the majority represents sane, righteous, unselfish public sentiment, it has no inherent right.”  ~William Allen White 

          The formation of our Government has been called the Democratic Experiment. It is so named because our Democracy and system of governance evolves over time, and may ultimately either succeed or fail. Success or failure depends on the People’s ability to monitor and realign excesses and perturbations in our Constitutional system.

          Some people are disappointed that the Supercommittee failed. The Supercommittee was always a posture and pander for the political base during an election year. It’s failure enables our national “problem solvers” to take a year off from work and play the blame game. I point out that more than 11 million foreclosures are in the pipeline next year.

          Congress has proven an inability to compromise. This translates into an inability to govern an American Democracy. It’s bad enough when deals are cut that favor special interests rather than the common good. In our current climate, no deals can be cut. In my opinion, any Congressperson unwilling to compromise should be fired. Lincoln said that our institutions are in the People’s hands. The People might review their history and demand reason and compromise from a broken Congress. It is unlikely that the physicians will heal themselves.

The Pursuit of Liberty

          The Thanksgiving holiday, that reflective convergence of Pilgrims, God, slain fowl and duped Native Americans. It is a time to pause and consider the blessings bestowed on us by Providence....before immediately desiring more bestowing next month.

         

          Compared to most other countries and peoples, we are certainly a materially blessed Nation. However, our nation also appears to have many complex systemic challenges which are difficult to decipher and unravel. There are protests in the streets against such systemic impediments to the American Dream. During this time of reflecting on the blessings of Providence, I am reminded of the words of Saint Paul in Ephesians.

          "We  wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual evil in high places (Eph. 6:12)". In the Greek text, this passage is literally rendered "Not is to us the wrestling against blood and flesh, but towards the originals (sovereignities) toward the authorities toward the system-holders (world-mights) of the darkness of the eon this toward the spiritual-forces of the wickedness among the on-heavenlies (celestial-ones). I will now take off my squinty scholar glasses and take up the collection. 

          What can we take away from this arcane passage that is relevant to our current reflections? (1) Greek writers seriously needed punctuation. (2) Our national "struggle" isn't against our fellow Americans. The invisible is driving the visible. While the passage implies deep and spooky behind-the-scenes governance, I don't know that we can control that sort of thing. We probably can't vote it out or pass a law against it. That probably goes beyond a "We the People" thing. But there are a few larger things we can control and influence.

          Is the land of the free in bondage and in need of liberty? We as individuals, families, communities, and as a nation are driven by our perceptions and attitudes. Reality is what we perceive it to be. Our social and political realities are contested and shaped by a vast array of agendas, ideologues and their mouthpieces. Often our religious convictions are indistinguishable from our political convictions. There is great time, energy and money expended to create and sustain our convictions, ideologies, and worldviews.

          Every dimension of our life is so engineered. For example, our purchasing priorities and choices are influenced by media, Madison Avenue, and pop culture. The "influencers" around us seek to sustain, empower and enrich themselves. Once they have succeeded in shaping our political and social realities, they immerse and insulate us within these worldviews and suppress disruptive alternative viewpoints. Both "hippies and hard hats" live in intellectual cocoons, although neither of them are aware of it.

          The "influencers" pit American against American in an arena of ideology and vitriol. Fear, hate and arrogance become the fulcrums for kneejerk emotional reactions. In many ways, the reason the last election was so damaging to the national psyche was that unity, hope and change were personified and contrasted to a message of division and fear. Ideals of hope and change failed to be realized and the terms became derisions. The last election was, in a sense, a portrait of the "spiritual" nature of the democratic experiment. America became great because we were a nation of unity, hope, and change. We erred along the way by trying to personify national values and virtues. We should always strive for these things because that's who we are as a people. We don't abandon them if one guy doesn't deliver. We should also be cautious of personifying and deifying Government, depending on institutions to solve our civil and community problems. The People create the institutions, and can recreate the ones that fail.

          God in His Providence gives us each a brain and a heart. We still have the ability to think and choose, and to change course if prudent. Reason, heart, and indeed faith can overcome unseen forces that seek to divide and conquer.

          The "solution" lies first in ourselves. Change ourselves, change our world. Change our thinking, change our future. For our institutions to become new, we have to become new. We must intentionally shift our thinking and explore/ create the common ground of what it means to be an American. What is our civic responsibility to our community and to one another? The "influencers" seek to keep us separate and struggling, but we can choose as a People to act as a People and create a new "reality". What should this new civic "reality" look like?

          de Tocqueville marveled at the egalitarian, industrious, inclusive and civic spirit of Americans. This was found nowhere else. This spirit made our nation great. We must, as a People, question and cast off the cocoons of the conventional, of indifference and ideology. We must first decide on our shared values...who we are...what we want to build for future generations. Only with clarity of values and purpose can we turn our attention to the institutions, visible manifestations of the invisible "influencers". The Spirit of our shared values and beliefs can oppose the dark divisive values and beliefs surrounding us.

          Take Wall Street as an example. Wall Street practices crashed our national economy and are currently crushing the dreams of millions of Americans through lending and credit practices. Can we assault a building and change this? Can we seek justice through the courts or through "other means" upon the people of Wall Street and change these practices? Probably not. There is a spirit behind Wall Street, a spirit of arrogance, of short term greed, of civic indifference and injustice...and the spirit is legal. There are spirits behind all our institutional 'influencers". In one sense, this may be what Paul is pointing out.

   

          How do we fight institutional "spirits", attitudes and ingrained practices? We the People can think and question and choose a different path, what to value, what to pay attention to, what to spend our time on, what to spend our money on. We can work together to oppose values and practices that set themselves against what make us Americans. We have it within ourselves to tear down the old and build the new.

          On this day of spiritual reflection, how could we choose to shift our thinking and actions to make a difference?

1. We can choose to shift from "me and mine" to "our"
2. We can choose to shift from "doing our thing" to reaching out and building together
3. We can choose to shift from seeking quantity to seeking quality
4. We can choose to shift from consumption to appreciation
5. We can choose to shift from introspective indifference to opposition againindividuals, institutions, and ideologies which divide and exploit us

          Let us reflect on the wisdom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights were considered inalienable, imparted by God and affirmed by Government. May God now impart the wisdom that enables us to establish a course of liberation from our current bondage of institutional "influences".

Scandalous Times

            I think that people are not particularly surprised at scandal and human frailty. I think that people are more incensed by lying and institutional cover-ups. The recent and emerging religious, political and sports sex scandals all have a few convergences. We tend to de-humanize our heroes and make them....heroic Superman wouldn't secretly use his superpowers to get trim on the side.

            It's not that the people involved are bad guys (why don't we hear much about women sexually abusing power?). Joe Paterno is a great leader. He not only won games, but is a great winner. He taught others to be great winners. But Joe messed up like other scandalous figures, caught up in a cult of personality within an institution that protects the cult leader.

            A major mistake made in these scandals is that the leaders turned to the institution to be informed of the appropriate moral response. At Penn State, abuse witness McQuearty ran to "daddy" rather than the police. This same culture exists in many hierarchical cultures, such as the police and the military. The institution will always protect and perpetuate itself. It insulates itself from external accountability. It will always protect it's "reputation". It will always enable scapegoating and cover-ups. Institutions inform a response converse to moral reasoning and in many cases legal reasoning.

            Leaders need a strong personal moral compass and great personal courage to do the "right thing" in the face of institutional pressures. But those that do are often not held up as heroes and exemplars. Why aren't these guys our heroes? How do we as a society contribute to empowering institutional coverups and lack of personal accountability? Are we part of the problem, and how can we become part of the solution?

Amending the Budget

            A current debate concerns the merits and passage of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the Federal budget. Perhaps we could, unlike we did with health care, look towards best practices of other first world nations who have a balanced budget. Are there  any  first world nations with a balanced budget? I know of no democratic nations with a balanced budget. Please....please enlighten my ignorance if this is wrong.

            As far as I am aware, every democratic Government spends more than it takes in. One might point out that China owns much of the United States from forty years of paying our national credit card. This is true. It is also ironic that the strongest economic growth globally is occurring in a Communist country. China has had a surplus since 1999. However, it is autocratic and owns the economy. Don't confuse trade surpluses with budgetary surpluses. US trade is at a disadvantage around the world from other nation's high import tariffs. Perhaps we should have matching trade tariffs, as one gentle reader points out. The other country gets to set whatever number it wants as tariff for our imports. Their exports will receive that same tariff. Seems fair to me. We could call the policy Golden Rule Economics (GRE) or Level Playing Field Economics (LPFE), whichever name you think works better.

            So there is a relationship between economics and national budgets. China has a budgetary surplus because it has an economic surplus. In China the national budget and the economy are the same entity. In democratic countries, they are separate. So until we nationalize all business and banks (I'm sure Obama's next agenda item on Fox News), we must look to the nonsense which is Congress to determine our national fiscal book balancing.

            Congress has always spent more than it takes in. All modern democratic nations spend more than they take in. All nations borrow their debt. Bottom line, you can't run a modern Western nation forced to "balance its budget".

            You can be more fiscally responsible, however. You can reduce the amount of debt you owe as a nation. That's possible and a good thing. Congress has to reduce spending. Sounds simple, unless you're an out-of-touch-with-reality addict jonesing for borrowed money.

            One might point to State balanced budgets. States either fire teachers and firefighters or borrow the money from the Feds. State balanced budgets are an illusion for the most part.

            One must learn the lesson of the gold standard. Our country was taken off the gold standard because it limited the size and growth of our economy. Our money was only as good as the amount of gold we had in storage. Our economy is many times larger than our gold reserve (if we do in fact still have a gold reserve). So now the value of our money is based on the "faith" people have in it. There's a scary thought.

            A related topic is the debt ceiling. When and why was the debt ceiling introduced? It was introduced during WWI as an acknowledgement that we had not a clue how much money a global war would cost. We are the only nation in the world with a raise-able debt ceiling (the other country never raises theirs).

            The realistic reason we have a raise-able debt ceiling and more spending than revenue is that we don't live in a bubble. We live in an unpredictable, dangerous, complex interdependent and dynamic world that can't be limited by the amount of cash in the wallet. Smart people have a credit card for emergencies. A debt ceiling is the emergency credit card (if you have to say start a foreign war for a decade).

            The other reality is that Congress has always spent taxpayer money like drunken sailors. We've just been drinking a lot more since Reagan. So the "Amendment" is less a realistic response to a turbulent environment and more a moral brake on Congressional excess. There is a more simple solution....pay-go. Spend whatever you want, but pay for it from revenue. Stop borrowing foreign money.

            Pay-go requires discipline, commitment and courage, three qualities in short supply in Washington. Can't work...not realistic.....you might state. It did....for four years. Bill Clinton and his bipartisan Congress were the only time in our nation's history (correct me if I'm mistaken) when we had a "surplus" and balanced budget in Congress. Sure I know that there was a bunch of stuff never included in Congressional budgets (>70% of our spending according of OMB). But...the spending that was included was balanced.

            We don't need a "constitutional amendment". Do you how difficult those things are to get passed. Congress does. So they have no intention of passing one. Bear that in mind. It's all show and symbol. We do need pay-go rules and some bipartisan backbone. It's worked before. Maybe we need to get the geezers back in office to show the Tea Party how it's done.

            In order to renew our Government, we as a People must be informed. The CBO/ OMB should put out a yearly report on our actual deficit and spending in a fashion that all Americans can grasp. Ross Perrot will help you with the charts. Renewal might require a clean sweep and radical finance reform. Insider trading and personal enrichment might actually be criminal and prosecuted offenses (looking at you most of Congress). It might be decided in national debate that term limits be imposed. The filibuster as practiced might be changed. Campaign finance reforms might limit contributions of man and beast, I mean corporations, to the same small amount. If Exxon and Jimmy Joe can both only contribute the same amount to keep a bum in office, and all those contributions would be transparently reported, the System would be fairer and more representative.  If our policy creation became less corrupt and less big-money driven, we actually might get a Government that works for the benefit of the People and our general welfare (heard that phrase somewhere). How bout that protestors?

Sharing the Sacrifice

          It is curious to note that the only portion of Obama’s job bill to pass so far is job aid to veterans. So the portion with the least realistic impact and maximum political gain passes. Hmmm….

          Critics of the Administration cite pullout from the Middle East as a blatantly political act. Withdrawal from Iraq is not optional. It’s the law, established by Bush Jr. Withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014 after 13 years of war may be political, but oh that 14th year promises to be the best if we don’t. It won’t matter. Trust me.

          We as a nation can sustain perpetual war. When your enemy is an ideology or label, war never ceases. The reason some can desire perpetual war is that “war” these days is so detached from our national consciousness. It’s something occasionally on the news. To say there is little shared sacrifice in the “war on terror” is a gross understatement. In a nation of 310 million people, only 23 million are veterans. That is 7% that have served in the military. Less than 1% of our current population is in uniform (active, guard, reserves).

          I advocate job aid to veterans. Our nation should provide far more for those who have given their all for that nation. But in the end, the job aid is a very political symbolic statement, another disconnect from the reality of suffering endured by many Americans. Who will provide a jobs bill for the other 99%? Those who serve give their lives for all of us, not just some of us. We can best honor their sacrifice by governing for all of us, not just for some of us.

You Don't Say You Want a Revolution

          I have been fascinated by the Occupy protests because they to some degree seen to get at the heart of the “problem” in our country. They appear to have two main messages, both rather salient. The American system of governance has been hijacked by corporations and that System is stacked against the Middle Class. I hope I’ve represented their message succinctly.

          Contrast these messages to that of the Tea Party, which fixated on debt, deficits, and smaller government. The Tea Party was able to change political discourse by interjecting these issues. The Occupy movement, even in  its infancy, despite a lack of “leaders”, popular spokespeople, and even consistent coherent messages, has injected the issue of injustice into our political dialogue, and is performing a valuable service within our civic life. These guys are changing the political landscape just by consistently hanging out.

          But look at the underlying thesis of the Occupy movement, Government has been wrested from the hands of the People. This is a profound, even revolutionary perspective. It’s implications are probably below the awareness or intention of the protestors, but a revolutionary worldview demands a revolutionary response. That is the dark at the end of the road. One can struggle against the darkness if true to the course set by the bright light of liberty, the notion of We the People. If this light is lost, only the darkness remains.

          There may well be an underlying rage underpinning the peaceful Occupy ethos. Gentle readers should not be surprised if acts of irrational violence and destruction emerge. Such violence and deaths have begun over the last few weeks. While the Tea Party struggles for control over spending, the Occupy struggle is for freedom itself. If their assessment of political reality is accurate, the Occupy fight is not for the balance sheet, but for the soul of the Nation. That is the implication of their message.

          While their overt focus is on inequality, are there deeper drivers of the Occupy movement? The American people have historically endured great socio-economic inequality, yet have remained an aspirational people. Americans aspire to further themselves and to further the lives of their children. This reflects the American Dream. This aspiration provided hope, a reason for the struggle and sacrifice. Remove the hope of the American Dream, and one simply struggles, one is a victim…of politicians…. or the rich….or corporate avarice….whatever is ascribed.

          So is Occupy a revolution? Revolutions are not born of Governments, or even of popular discontent. Revolutions are borne of hope, and from hope to shared vision, from vision to resolve, and from resolve to courage and concerted action. Without hope, all that is left is despair and rage. The Occupy movement may not have leaders and messages because it may the social thrashing of a wounded beast, unsure what action to take to assuage itself. How is the decline of the American Dream related to the populist Occupy protests? There is a converging view that a key social driver is the decline in social mobility, which is at the heart of the American Dream.

          Last year, for the first time in our nation’s history, a majority of Americans reported believing that opportunities for their children would diminish rather than increase. This visceral awareness within the populace reflects what the numbers are just beginning to reveal. Social mobility in America is declining. A Newsweek cover story points out in popular language what social scientists had been monitoring. For a person born in 1970 in the bottom 2/5ths of our economy, 50% of these people remained in the bottom 2/5ths of the economy. They are likely to remain there for life. Contrast this to 30% in England and 20% in Sweden and Denmark. What explains the decline in US social mobility…..a decline in the quality of our educational system.

         

          Quality of education might be defined as preparing students for the real world. As Fareed Zakaria points out, when Steve Jobs graduated high school, the California educational system was the finest in the world. This system enabled the high tech revolution and formation of silicon valley, telecommunications, computing, and the internet. There was more effective government partnership with business and education in those days. Now the California educational system is a disaster, with the State spending twice as much on prisons as education.

          In the 1980s, national standardized testing was introduced and the quality of education declined across the board. The politicians and teacher unions which broke the system continue to advocate the same course which broke it.  Contrast this to the high quality of education in Northern Europe, which still remains consistently high. One may not be surprised to learn that the quality of education is the best predictive correlate of social mobility.  

          Our national institutions are obsolete and broken. They are one the “wrong track” and require renewing. This nation was founded on the unique premise that average people could create their own nation and govern through the rule of law. Can the People once more regain the helm of their governance? It is possible to take back our national institutions, but it will no doubt be a long and “messy business” to do so.