Rival Revolutionaries

          Gingrich contends that Obama is “a Saul Allinsky radical”. Gingrich is always entertaining. Who is Alinsky? He is known as the “father of modern radicalism”. Alinsky created “rules” that channel amorphous grassroots emotion and discontent into concerted tactical and strategic action. His approaches were adopted by the civil rights movement and campus radicals in the 1960s. Virtually every form of social protest seen today reflects Alinsky’s methods to some extent. They are published in strategic planning publications such as Public Relations Strategies and promoted internationally by such strategic think tanks as the Miyamoto Strategic Council. The methods are very effective in enabling groups to confront and change the big and powerful. So virtually everyone who organizes grass roots action is a Saul Alinsky radical, in method if not in motive, including Mr. Gingrich.

          The Newtster is playing off Establishment sentiment that his opposition is a radical. Newsflash to Newt, the culture wars are over and the Counterculture is now the mainstream. For Newt, being  radical and a revolutionary is a bad thing. It depends which revolutionary tradition inspires you. “Modern” or Marxist revolutionaries are populist, and seek political reform and social justice. They are inherently anti-Establishment and anti-colonialist.  They oppose the established political and economic order. When they come into power, Marxist revolutionaries often form a country characterized by a few exploiting the many, profound economic inequality, the illusion of popular political engagement, manipulation of the media, and entrenched political corruption. Good thing that’s nothing like our country…pesky Marxists.

          Newt believes we should be inspired by the Founding Fathers, such as Madison and Jefferson. However, our Founders were also radicals and revolutionaries, opposing the established economic and political order. Both modern and Founding revolutionaries believed that Government and the “system” gets its power and authority from the People and that the People have the power to establish a system of governance rather than simply comply to the one in place. Since a core value of the Founders was liberty, they may well have radically opposed a political system with neo-colonial aspirations and big business dependence.

          One might contend that the Founders were rich, white guys who wanted to protect the interest of rich, white guys. Not true. They ferociously opposed an aristocracy of wealth and privilege. They established a Government designed to protect the rights of all Americans. They laid an egalitarian, inclusive foundation that benefited all enfranchised citizens.

          Self-governance is always based on radicalism and revolution. Only in complacency and defense of the Establishment, the dividing and conquering of the People, can avarice and exploitation flourish. So which radical tradition will YOU choose to be inspired by? Or will you just defend the status quo?

          It may be mentally jarring to conflate Che with Madison. There are many points of common ground on which the Founding Fathers would agree and align with modern radicals. The original Tea Party was a protest against the East India Company, as well as the taxation policy of the Crown. Both would have opposed the exploitation of the People by the wealthy and privileged. They would both oppose social injustice and political/economic corruption. Both believe that the  People have the authority and responsibility to renew the ”system” when it becomes “tyrannical”. Does tyranny mean exploitive and providing no authentic options for genuine reform….such as a “two Party” system which is inherently the same big money Party? Let’s see what one revolutionary radical advises:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." – Thomas Jefferson

Temper-ature Tantrums

          On Jan. 20th, the Supreme Court threw out lawsuits against the EPA and their regulation of greenhouse gases. House Republicans passed a bill trying to stop the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate such emissions. I guess Republicans don’t need clean air. The Court unanimously ruled that the EPA had the authority to regulate carbon emissions. Republican State legislatures (why is it always Republicans?) are taking action to codify “alternative” views opposing global warming/ climate change, much as they tried to do with evolution.

          Climate change is one of the most complex subjects. It is certain that science and data are marginalized in the conflation of ideology, big money politics and big money economics. I do not concern myself with the politics or economics. The data are clear and disturbing.

          It is clear the earth is getting warmer. This is data, not opinion. Yesterday, NOAA released the numbers for 2011. The global temperature averaged 57.9 degrees, about a  degree higher than the average for the 20th Century. The 2011 numbers continue the heating trend evidenced for the last 35 years.

          How does carbon tie into climate change? The environment is based on connections. A change in one thing affects many other things. So relationships are extremely complex and indirect. The direct linkage between carbon levels and observed temperature rise is not yet established. There are many alternate explanations for the observed climate data http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/alternative-views-climate-change/p14318.

          Theoretically, carbon should affect climate and weather in a couple of ways. Increased carbon gases prevent heat from escaping into space and raise global temperatures. Greenhouse gases are what the world might be regulating if it was less selfish, greedy, myopic and self-absorbed. Carbon gases also lessen the amount of light reflected into space, absorbing more sunlight, causing shifts in the jet stream and more turbulence in the atmosphere.

          So what if it gets a couple of degrees warmer? What’s the big deal? The big deal is found in the oceans, the global generator of weather. The ocean circulation system such as the Gulf Stream and the Trade Winds are powered by temperature. If surface waters get too hot, circulation would stop. This, like all radical climate change, can occur within a decade http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282. Major changes in ocean circulation would cause major shifts in weather patterns.

            It is clear that global temperatures are rising http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=average-global-temperature-rise-creates-new-normal. Rising temperatures melt more polar & glacial ice sending more water into the atmosphere. More water in the atmosphere produces more extreme water related weather (snow, floods, tornadoes, drought).

          So it will take a big rise in temperatures to hurt anything, right? Nope. If water temperatures in the deeper oceans vary by 4 degrees, it is enough to kill phytoplankton, little sea critters that other critters eat. Phytoplankton are the foundation of the global food chain. If they go away bad things happen to life. Can you say mass extinction? Surface phytoplankton are already dying because of temperature rise http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population.

            The purpose of this piece is not to alarm, but to inform. I’m not advocating hugging trees or expensive reactive policy measures. I am advocating that global warming is real and it has very real dangers. We should all acknowledge the evidence and parse the science from the other stuff to determine a way forward.

            So in summary, I’m saying with certainty that the earth is getting warmer and there is danger associated with that. People are evidently contributing to the rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. What that produces is unclear. How much of the warming is natural or cyclic is unclear. However, ice frozen for hundreds of thousands of years is currently melting. That we as humans can do anything about all of this is also unclear. We can’t “nation build” a single country, much less change global climate. Our legislators do have a responsibility not to deny facts. Even if our efforts are futile, misdirected or incompletely informed, our legislators have a responsibility to try to preserve a livable climate for future generations. I don’t think there’s a lot of controversy inherent in this paragraph.  

            If we do have a mass extinction, the little critters living on the ocean floor next to volcanic vents should be oblivious to it. Over time, these might adapt beyond the sea floor, evolve into complex sentient beings, invent commerce and later the free market, and then screw one another over for a buck, which is a big part to how things got screwed up in the first place.  

Racing in Carolina

          I’ve been asked by many gentle readers why I don’t comment on candidates or debates, as was the custom of my people in former times. Frankly, our political discourse is divisive and fraught with personal attacks, the wrong road and counterproductive to how we need to work together as a nation. Reluctantly, I agreed to watch a Republican debate and make comments. So steeled with popcorn and whiskey to pull me through the ordeal, I observed the fracas. I will attempt to frame my impressions in a constructive light and speak to larger issues of political discourse.

          Free market regulation- an extensive and popular theme. The case was made that you shouldn’t give Government credit for free market success. Previously Santorum stated that was like giving Al Gore credit for inventing the Internet. Cue the laugh track. I point out a couple of things. Al Gore was a Congressional visionary and helped fund the DARPA project that created the Internet. Secondly, it was a DARPA government project that created the Internet. Such private/ public partnerships used to be the rage in bygone years, giving us interstate highways, telecommunications, silicon valley and Tang.

          When asked their position on the SOPA bill regulating (censoring) the Internet, all the candidates opposed it. Santorum said the bill was poorly written but we need some protection against intellectual property piracy. “Where did we get the idea that anything goes on the Internet?”. Rick, we have copyright and patent law in this country. If your intellectual property is pirated, sue their butts. If other counties don’t care about our copyright laws, they won’t care about our SOPA laws either. Perhaps our Government should not proactively censor the internet to keep giant corporations from losing money. Are their lawyers working too hard?

          Hearing these guys talk, “anything goes” does seem to be the guiding principle in defending the sacred free market, which was created by Jesus. We’re a nation of law, but we don’t need no stinking regulations. The less the better. Turn the job creators loose. Hmmm….

          Why do we have regulations? Usually they are reactions to excess and abuse that allow politicians to express their “outrage” and cover their butts. Since our Government is a bureaucracy, little silos keep increasing in size and power and crank out more and more regulations. Since they come from little silos, regulations can be contradictory, redundant, or obsolete.

          Why else do we have regulations? They are to regulate how the game is played and protect people from rapacious avarice and predatory practices. It’s like a football game. Regulations boundary the field, but you can beat each other up trying to gain fiscal yardage all you want inside the boundaries. Do we need regulations? It is evident that when regulations are exceeded greed and creativity have babies. When fiscal football is played in the stands and out into the parking lot, a lot of innocent people get hurt. Sorry about your baby m’am…my bad. Because our financial regulatory boundaries were (and are) vastly outstripped, more than half our financial institutions are “shadow”, having NO regulation. Greed and predatory practices rained out the game for a season, but these practices still continue going their merry semi-legal way.

          Regulations are supposed to provide clarity and standards of conduct/ practice. There are many ways of producing useful regulations, and bureaucracies aren’t one of them. Regulations need to be streamlined, proactive, adaptive, and strategically aligned. England reformed and consolidated its regulations and is financially regulated by a guy. We need to consolidate and modernize how we create regulations. This will require leadership and vision. Good luck with that. But the role of government in the free market, as most things, is a tradeoff. Although it has a valuable and legitimate role to play, Government is often treated like the smelly vagrant at the party. What are you doing here? Can’t you see we’re having fun?

         

          Amidst all this market worship, the bottom line issue of connecting business profit with worker benefit is never discussed. This connection formed the Middle Class, the American Dream, and the post-war American Experience. Without this connection, all of these things are fading. Elephant in the room, anyone?

          Taxes- “I have a uncle who lives in Taxes.” “No, I’m talking dollars man.” “Yeh, that’s where he a’ lives…Dollars Taxes” –Marx Brothers

The candidates were asked to produce their tax returns. Morbid curiosity I guess. Newt posted his during the debate. He gets a gold star and a cookie. Ron Paul said he wouldn’t post his. He was embossed how low his income was. He said to look at the Congressional financial statements. That’s how much he makes since he doesn’t talk to lobbyists or take their money. I love Texas.

          I note that personal finance is a weakness for Mitt and he becomes very rattled when that area is explored. Recently, Mitt said he would release last years return. During the debate, this shifted from one report to “several”. Mitt’s daddy George once ran for office. He posted 12 years of returns. George said that a single year could be fluke, produced for show. I predict that Mitt will not post anything from his Bain days. I predict he paid much less than 15% taxes and since the word Cayman is already out there, that would be why. I had heard about that but wanted it to become a talking point before mentioning it. Anyway, Mitt said that since his opposition challenges what he releases drip by drip, he would release his returns all at once. I point out that Mitt has  never released his income, although asked to do so since 1994. So this will be a novel drippy experience for him. The Cayman is a lizard isn’t it?

          Aliens- A lady asked how we can keep Americans at the front of the line for jobs. There is plenty of produce in Alabama that needs picking and you can be first in line, darlin’. All want to create residency programs for established illegals except for Santorum, who believes in rule of law. Rick, there are too many to throw out. That’s called reality. Work with it. Newt said astutely “It’s too hard to come into the country legally and too easy to come in illegally.” So reverse that and you might be on to something, guys.

           Division- Mitt said that Obama separating us into 99% & 1% is dangerous. We are one nation under God. Mitt may have had to look at a dollar bill to get that quote. So economic divisions are bad….but political and partisan polarization is….? Check your money again.

          Social Issues- The consensus was that Obama wants to turn the US into a European Socialist Entitlement State. The word freedom was used a lot. Santorum stated that Obama wanted to cut military spending and not cut a penny of social programs. Both of these are “falsehoods”. Obama proposed millions of dollars of Medicare/ Medicaid spending cuts and military spending is being automatically cut due to the failings of an unusually incompetent Congress. Just setting the record straight.

          So freedom is good in the free market and not good helping struggling Americans because it just keeps them struggling. “They had better do it (die), and decrease the surplus population. – Scrooge” Gotta love the holidays.  The picture I get is….I don’t like a nanny state forcing economic redistribution and stinking clean air and water standards while killing jobs. We could manufacture more gas masks and be job creators. But the nanny state is great for regulating naughty behavior. We have to force people to love Jesus and unborn babies. While I personally love Jesus and unborn babies I don’t want to have to. There’s that freedom thing.

          I am unclear as to why lovers of freedom would want to regulate moral standards. The reason we have abortion is our national moral standards shifted and the law didn’t. Want to go back to Mayberry, Rick? What’s the end game look like? A ban on abortion? I refer you to the Prohibition to be informed by history. Forced abstinence? Hey, we could manufacture chastity belts and be job creators. So we don’t want a nanny for market behavior, environmental protections or civil liberties, but we do want to nanny our way back to the Cleavers. I would prefer to change hearts and minds on a moral position. Morality which runs against the cultural grain and enforced by cops and Homeland Security is so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

          Well, out of grub, out of booze, out of patience. Signing off.

Venture or Vulture?

          I normally don’t comment on particular horses in the Presidential race. That will change during the general election. However, the Bain bane currently occurring amidst the Republican camp is reflective of larger questions concerning free market capitalism. Before I look at Bain, I’ll just note that Mitt made his own millions, unlike most other candidates. I’ll also note that Mitt is the most affluent person ever to run for the Presidential office.  Does he know the economy and how to make money? You betcha. I’m told by insiders that he is very savvy and capable economically. So it comes down to character and motive. That’s for voters to decide.

          Mitt formed Bain Capitol as a venture capital firm, which means they gave money to start and fix businesses in order to make a profit for their shareholders. Capital is the lifeblood of the free market. Over time, Bain morphed into a predatory corporate raider, buying companies to tear them apart and sell off the pieces. This is the yin and yang of free market reality and is how the game is played.

          Did Bain create jobs? You betcha. Did Bain destroy companies and fire lots of people? You betcha. Romney seems good at both. I do note that some on his executive team called him “the surgeon” for his dispassionate dissection of companies in later years. So it all comes down to character and motive.

          Rather than reduce Bain to a Frankensteinian “friend good, Bain bad” position, Bain reflects the amoral complexities of survival of the fittest free market  realities. Bain was good at what it did in all its iterations and doubled shareholder profits, which is called winning the game.

          The natural world and the economic world don’t follow Disney rules. Surveys indicate that a majority of Americans object to the notion of evolution, and many feel evolutionary capitalism is morally distasteful as well. These emotional reactions will enable Romney’s detractors to gain unrealistic political advantage, particularly in the general election.

          A couple of points to make here. Americans are still largely mentally stuck in the past notion that work is making stuff. Capitalism is about making money for business owners, not making stuff, creating jobs, building business capability, or advancing the American Dream. Making profit for shareholders is the purpose of venture capital/ corporate raiding companies. They don’t really make anything but rather move assets and money from one bank account to another. Mitt erred when he jumped on the “job creator” bandwagon. Did Bane create jobs? Sure. Did it cut jobs? Sure. That’s their game. It made money, which is the bottom line. Making huge profits without making stuff is one of the objections the average guy has of Wall Street. The average guy can understand that Bain didn’t make anything other than shareholder millionaires. We’ll see how that plays on Main Street
.

          The other point is that while Mitt may indeed be very capable at creating a very favorable and stimulating climate for free market capitalism, this ain’t your daddy’s capitalism. There is currently a disconnect between corporate profits and worker benefit. So as business and their owners might get much richer and fatter, the rest of the country will get leaner. All the defenders of the free market never seem to address this reality. This disconnect is the single most factor, in my opinion, contributing to the erosion of the Middle Class, America as we knew it, and prosperity for future generations. Putting a business friendly hand at the helm without re-forging this connection will keep our country headed towards the rocks. I’m all for free market profits. Just connect them throughout the business. 

2011 -Year in Revue

Biggest Winner:

Gold- the Arab street; the populist political tidal wave still resonating throughout the Middle East represents the most powerful transformative global social dynamic.

Silver- Occupy Wall Street for changing the national political dynamic and discourse

Bronze- Wall Street and the top 1% for keeping their money and not paying more taxes. The rich still pay 15% in taxes versus 30+% the rest of us pay. Wall Street, as of this week, averages 45% of compensation to revenue. Such obscene rates of compensation are defended as retention policies for the best and brightest. Since all the firms pay the same, what other business could they jump ship for that would enable them to make that amount of money? There was a time when all investment houses were private. People risked their own money, made huge profits and huge salaries. God bless them. Around forty years ago all the houses become public and now take HUGE risks with other people’s money and up to 60% of all revenue goes to the brokers, not the public investors or shareholders.

Honorable Mention: With an emphasis on the word honorable, the men of Seal Team 6 took out Osama. All in a days work for these unsung heroes defending our lazy asses.       

Biggest Loser:

Gold- The Middle Class; Like a California mudslide, the Middle Class continued to erode into poverty in a hemorrhage of job loss, home foreclosures, and lost health care. Numbers for 2011 indicated the highest levels of poverty in 52 years and rising. Formerly affluent suburbia is slipping into poverty (below $22k) at a 50% increase over 2010.

Silver- Obama Administration economic policies; These guys seem clueless in effectively stimulating the economy or at least taking the opportunity to fix what is broken, all the while adding $4.4 trillion to the National Debt while they test out various economic theories. Their approach has been diffuse and misaligned rather than leveraging fundamental systematic  structural reforms. Their initial anemic stimulus package failed to match the scale of the need and failed to incentivize stimulative practices. It did sustain business as usual for a year. After squandering remaining precious political capital on a very controversial health care bill, no reforms have been made on the foundational problems which caused the economic collapse. Investment practices still go on as before, bailout bait banks go on too big to jail, corporations are still getting fat and sassy doing brisk business offshore and the tax code is business as usual, only more complicated. A scholarly joint study by Stanford and UC Berkeley released last week indicated that 2 million jobs were not created due to regulatory uncertainty in the business community. Like most issues, the Bush Lite Obama boys seem to try to sustain business as usual while the situation goes to hell in a handbasket.

Bronze- John Corzine, symbolizing the worst aspects of our political and economic elite. It’s one thing to lose $1.2 billion in the market. It’s another thing to just lose $1.2 billion. Check your other pants, John.

Most Defining Political Moment:

Gold- Debt ceiling debacle; This spectacle of a squabbling gridlocked Congress led to the economic downgrade of the US credit rating and a single-digit approval rating by the American people. This exercise in discretionary brinkmanship alienated many Independents. This fiasco was followed by additional circus acts such as a totally failed “Supercommittee” and forced Sequester of discretionary and Defense spending. Best not look for solutions from these juvenile, intransigent, incompetent ideologues….or put another way… This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when a baby gets hold of a hammer – Will Rogers.

Silver- Obama’s rejection of his own bipartisan Bowles-Simpson economic plan. He now appears to have no way forward for economic stimulus.

Bronze- The US withdrawal from Iraq; Hardly seems worth the price tag of $1 trillion spent, nearly 1 million Iraqi civilians killed and 457,000 US casualties over nine years (I point out for contrast that more than a half million civilians were killed in Syria in the last nine months…invasion anyone?). The Council on Foreign Relations called the Iraq War the worst foreign policy blunder in US history. Don’t be shy, guys. Tell us how you really feel.

Best Photo Op: Best foreign photo op was the flawless fairy tale wedding of Kate and William; Best US photo op was the situation room anxiously waiting for the results of the Bin Laden raid.

Enough Already: Political exploition; Hopefully, less media time will be devoted to those looking for love in all the wrong places, such as Anthony Weiner, and those using politics as a springboard for personal enrichment, such as Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump.

Person of the Year: Steve Jobs, who even in death will influence future generations more than any fleeting contemporary politician. Jobs dared to dream the impossible and innovated an emerging age of interpersonal connectivity and democratization of global discourse. Jobs exemplified the unusual mix of entrepreneur and innovative visionary so needed for our future global competition.

Greatest Strides Forward: Women in business; In 2011, the pay gap between men and women was at a historic low, women formed the majority of college graduates, and women started twice as many businesses as men.

Days of Future Past

          We just got back from visiting our first grandchild. Grandchildren are the reward for not strangling our kids. I have been watching town halls and have several blogs rumbling about in my fevered brain.

          Would the Founding Fathers be Democrats or Republicans? Although claimed by both political Parties (like Jesus), the sentiments of the Founding Fathers were very different from modern political perspectives. This blog brings out such differences in order to inform a national path forward.

          The Founders recognized that political philosophies are tradeoffs. We note these tradeoffs daily in our need for security vs. liberty, State vs. Federal power, and the role of Government in our lives. However, issues tend to be framed in an adversarial dialectic, rather than acknowledging the validity inherent in opposing views. For example, one Party might be framed in terms of a European Socialist model and the opposition as laissez-faire. However, all Americans have need of and benefit from collective resources and services. Our nation was established to benefit the common welfare. So the reality is that collective need & responsibility (i.e. Government services...i.e. socialism) are a tradeoff rather than an either-or proposition. Past "socialists" established a five day, forty hour workweek, paid vacations, pensions & benefits for workers, and a social safety net that supports the needy, handicapped and elderly...and Congress. If you like any of these things, you just might be a socialist. It is historically interesting to note that the concept of European Socialism (political, not economic) originated in the United States. Unlike ourselves, our Founders were mindful of the tradeoffs and common ground of their positions.

          Our concepts of conservatism and liberalism would have been alien to their thinking. Liberals frame Government as a nanny, watchdog and parent. Conservatives see our nation as an "exceptional" global cop. The Founders actively avoided foreign entanglements and empire-building. It was America's job to build America.

          In the 18th Century, taking care of the needy, the destitute and the imprisoned were the responsibility of the community and the church, not the State. We worked as a community to improve our community. When civil and religious society abandoned their responsibility for social improvement, the need remained. In the vacuum, all that was left was Government.

        

          Take the concept of conservatism. Today we have three major dimensions to conservatism: fiscal, international, and social. The Founders only had the first two. As mentioned, the Founders were cautious concerning foreign entanglements. They also attempted to be responsible in their spending and taxation, although we have never in our history had a balanced budget or spent less than our revenue.

          The most notable difference with the Founders is their agreement on the issues we pack into our social dimensions. There was broad consensus on the civic responsibility of the individual and community. The shared value of liberty enabled a spectrum of religious, moral, and political views to contribute to civic life. Their core values enabled them to work together. How much does our fixation and contention on social issues divide our nation today? Should we challenge our current destructive ideologies if they don't help us work together?  

          Would Washington be a Democrat or Republican? Hard to say. Washington was cautious concerning Government spending, but he saw the necessity of covering such spending with taxation. It seems being reasonable separates the Founders from ourselves.

         

          Ideologically, Hamilton fought for a strong central Government and Jefferson advocated strong States rights and limited Federal influence. Hamilton got shot and Jefferson became President. When the opportunity presented itself, Jefferson promptly doubled the size of the United States, increased the influence of the Federal Government and created the first large deficit in our history. So much for ideology. Being realistic might differentiate these guys from ourselves. Ideologues live in the world that should be. The Founders were adapting and creating a new world.

Shared Values

          It would be very difficult for us to relate to an 18th Century worldview. We often view past civilizations though a contemporary lens. Rome appears to be one big toga party. But the Roman values of slavery, imperialism, militarism, and blood sports as popular entertainment would doubtlessly be discordant and offensive to modern sensibilities. However, Roman and Greek governance formed the intellectual framework for the foundation of the United States. The Founding Fathers translated archaic ancient practices into Enlightenment values and created our Constitutional Republic.

          This translation process is relevant for a few reasons. The Founding Fathers didn't treat ancient practices as sacred and set in stone. They were committed to creating a "more perfect union", which involved immediate amending of Constitutional governance. Today, some would hold the work of the Founding Fathers to be sacred and "literally" parse Constitutional law as fine as a religious scholar. Scripture distinguishes the spirit from the letter of the law. So should we when dealing with the Constitution and our Founding Fathers.

          We might do well to take from our national Founders their methodology, their core assumptions, their core values, and their motives. These are different than our own. They translated the past and responded to the unique challenges of their times. They were nation builders and they called on us as their legacy to be nation builders. We might compare our values, assumptions and practices with theirs in order to forge a path forward as a nation.

          In order to create our Union, the Founding Fathers had to work based on a consensus of values, assumptions, and beliefs. In order to renew our nation, we as a People must establish consensus on core values and assumptions. What were some of the values, assumptions, and practices of our forefathers?

Rules and Risk

          In a letter written from his Selma jail cell, Martin Luther King pointed out that everything the Founding Fathers did was illegal. Although informed by the past, our Founders were future thinkers, innovating a new society. These men were revolutionaries, risking their lives, vision, and progeny in order to organize and assemble. The seven signed Revolutionary documents were death sentences for the signatories if their cause failed. Numerous missions undertaken by Washington and his army were rolls of the die which might in a moment spell the total destruction of our national fighting capability and the failure of our revolutionary cause. These were men of passion who risked all. These were men creating rules as they went along, guided by shared core values of liberty, freedom and unity. Rather than work "within the system", our founders created a new system. They innovated a new course rather than comply with the conventional. Are we complying within a dysfunctional two Party political system? Are we entrenched in destructive ideologies and obsolete mindsets? Are we a compliant, conforming People mired in the past or a bold, innovative People forging a bright future together? Will we need to adopt the Founder's passion, values and bold action to re-create or renew our government and body politic?

Unity

          It is currently fashionable to identify identity in terms of diversity, how we are different. The dysfunctional poison within our Government arises from defining in terms of difference. Political identity, like religion, has a light tradition and a dark tradition, and there are constructive and destructive energies associated with both. The individual can tap into such constructive or destructive energies. Identification with a particular political reality and energy is a personal choice and decision. Diversity can build or destroy us as a nation.

          We can define ourselves relative to how we are different, or we can choose to define ourselves by how we are the same. We can search out or assume division or search out common ground. That is a choice and a decision.

          Identity is based on values and assumptions. Psychologically, internalized assumptions (part of who we are) are felt rather than considered. This means that if your value "boundary" is crossed, you will have a profound emotional reaction. Modern political realities are crafted based on deep emotional triggers to produce affiliation and divisions. In this way, the American People are being divided and conquered by the "system".

          One of the biggest changes in politics over the last 30 years is the framing of political opposition as "the enemy" rather than a differing political philosophy. The Founding Fathers would be profoundly opposed to framing fellow Americans and lawmakers as one might frame the forces of King George.

          Modern ideologies make those holding divergent views the enemy by polarizing into simplistic values and assumptions, such as red or blue, conservative or liberal, Christian or anybody else, pro-life or choice, gays or "traditional", "big government" spending or the illusion of not-big government spending. Such political ideologies promote a visceral kneejerk reaction as they leverage hate, fear, arrogance and other primordial emotions. These emotions are distilled into polarized purist factions and monitored by thought police. You can't compromise or give an inch. They're the ENEMY for God sake.

          The Founding Fathers also had profound economic and political disagreements but all still sought unity. They intentionally created an adversarial system of governance in order to build in intellectual diversity and accountability, but intended that system to operate for the common good. The point of creating the United States was to leverage the industry and resources of many States, held together by rule of law and shared values.  Their shared goal was to unite rather than divide.

          Our Founders were profoundly divided on slavery, State vs. Federal power, the role of Government, and how a government should be established and constituted. These are huge issues, but yet these men were committed to establishing a single nation. In order to do so, they based their work on shared assumptions and values. Currently, our values and assumptions are used by others to divide us.

          What values enabled transcendence of differences? The Founding Fathers shared Enlightenment values of reason, tolerance, self-determinism, liberty, and freedom. These values enabled people with profound differences to collectively innovate and govern. Political opponents were not the "enemy", but fellow Americans. All were risking their life to create and establish a shared vision.

         

          In 1782, the Continental Congress proposed the use of the phrase E Pluribus Unum "out of many, one" to describe an unprecedented form of governance. We combined nation-states into a single collective political body. While the phrase has specific meaning within political science and philosophy, our Founders intended a broader inclusive enfranchisement of all citizens into a common People. This sentiment was derived from Augustine's 4th Century use of the phrase.  

          Should we adopt the values of the Founding Fathers and build anew together? There can be no building if we're focused on differences or divisions. What values can we all adopt that will help us work together and move our nation forward?

Liberty and Compromise

          Reason and liberty are probably the two most important values enabling our nation's founding. A shared objective was the creation of a common nation out of many. So reason enabled compromise and liberty framed the outcomes. For example, modern interpretations are that our nation was founded to provide religious freedom. It was not. Various peoples sought religious liberty, and then promptly established their brand as a State religion. We had two major blocks of State religion within the colonies when the Constitution was written. The shared value of liberty enabled the free exercise of religion and abolished the State religions. Core Enlightenment values enabled compromise on the political, economic, and moral issues facing the Founders.

         

          Ours was a nation based on rational compromise. It was Enlightenment values and their political expression which challenged and transformed the world. Compromise and subsequent progress was a defining characteristic of the United States and what made our nation great. Is rational compromise still a defining characteristic? What core values might we choose to adopt to renew our nation?

A Way Forward?

          We have seen that the intention of the Founding Fathers was a unified nation reflecting values of reason, self-determinism, liberty and freedom. We can see how different are our political sensibilities and instincts. Will we challenge and re-create the "system" or comply to the tyranny of the conventional? Will we be told the rules, or shall we determine the rules?

          We may need to challenge and rethink long held conventions. For example, the Founding Fathers would doubtlessly be appalled at business entities accorded civil rights or that money equates to free speech. If money is free speech, I note that your voice and my voice are getting fainter and fainter in the sea of corporate lobbyists, propaganda machines and political coalitions. Best Government money can buy.  

          All bureaucracy increases itself. We may need to reverse that trend in Government. Renewing our nation will require clarity of vision, values, purpose and decision criteria. Having these was much of the "genius" of our Founding Fathers.

          Our vision and purpose has to be forward looking. A central theme in politics these days involves seeking or restoring something that is lost...the American Dream, "traditional" values, being number one, creating the rules of how the global game is played. A problem with bemoaning a lost past is that it is unrecoverable. You can't go home again. We all want to visit Mayberry, Floyd and Aunt Bee, but they are dead and gone. We might lose our childhood dreams, but we can dream new dreams.

          Another concern with dwelling on the past is that it is dangerous. It is a fundamental denial of present reality. It's like driving a car while fixated on the rear view mirror. Like the Founding Fathers, our collective questions should concern where we're going and how to get there.

          A final issue is that the Founding Fathers focused on the common good. That's the purpose for forming the country. Our civic and social responsibility is so fragmented that our society is dependent on Government and the Courts to promote social progress and justice. This was not our intended model. Our Government is not designed for this.

          As there is a disconnect between civic responsibility and social need, there is a disconnect between profit and social benefit. Labor spent a century connecting profit to worker benefit. Hard work was rewarded. Now owning the company is rewarded. This is a huge and crucial recent historical development. It is easy to forget that business was forced to imcrease wages and benefits and create a Middle Class and American Dream. Why is the Middle Class vanishing? The relationship between profit and benefit has been severed. Who will restore it and what will it take to make this happen?

          One can yearn for the past of Reagan, Mayberry or the Founding Fathers. One should not dwell in the past but be informed by it. We can cruise along fixated on the rear view mirror, put on the cruise control and take a nap while our future is written by others, or follow the example of the Founding Fathers, clean our windshield and boldly work together to create a bright, prosperous future.