Of Man and Talking with the Father

David, as psalmist, asked God, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:4)  David was driven to the question by contemplating the infinite works of God displayed in the night sky.  To him, all that man was, whatever man was and did, was insignificant when compared with God and His creations.

David went on to answer his own question, at least in part.  He recognized the divine attributes with which God has endowed man, crowning him “with glory and honour”, granting to man “dominion over the works of” God’s hands, that God has “put all things under his [man’s] feet:  all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” (Psalm 8:5-8)

The marvels of nature and the creatures of the earth are breathtaking.  The complexity of the simplest forms of life eludes adequate description and elicits wondrous appreciation when carefully considered.  As marvelous as all these are, nothing on earth inanimate compares in wonder and complexity with living creatures, and there is no living creature to approach the wonder of man.

Of course some self-important yet self-despising scholars trouble to challenge the apodictically true pronouncement of God to the first man and woman that they were given dominion over all living things on earth (cf. Genesis 1:26-28).  But the very erudition of their failed philosophy still serves to demonstrate the intellectual chasm between man and the most intelligent non-human life form, a distance that is unbridgeably vast. 

Evidences are abundant, but I offer a handful in illustration:  no creature but a human can write even the simplest book let alone a Shakespeare play.  No creature but a human can build anything remotely as complex or useful as a typical suburban house let alone a modern skyscraper.  No creature but a human can invent musical harmonies let alone compose a Beethoven symphony.  No bird of any kind can fly as fast or as high or transport as much weight as one of the more simple jet planes let alone a modern airliner.  Elsewhere I have pointed out the curious example of man’s dominion in that (as far as I have observed) humans are the only creatures on earth to have pets.  Even man’s destructive abuse of his powers serves to emphasize his possession of abilities of a kind beyond the ken of any other creatures.

Man has not been given these gifts as the most favored of God’s animals.  He receives them by inheritance, and the gifts that man exercises in mortality are but intimations of what God the Father has prepared for His children in the eternities.  So Paul taught the Romans,

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:  and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  (Romans 8:16-18)

With these gifts come responsibilities.  In modern times the Lord reminded His children that the riches of the earth and of all creatures,

are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. 

And it pleaseth God that he has given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.  (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-20)

This confidence coupled with accountability assigned to man by the Creator may be significant reasons why prayer is so simple, why communication with God is so direct, as child to Father.  We are like Him, and He is mindful of us.  Communicating with God is not like a dog trying to communicate its wants to its master.  When God created the earth, all creatures were to multiply, “after their kind”, but God created man and woman, “in his own image” (cf. Genesis 1:21-27).  He wants us to talk with Him and places no barriers between us and Him, because we are of a kind. 

It takes no more faith—and no service charges—to talk with God than it does to communicate with your aunt in Cleveland.  But you do have to believe in Him as much as you do in her.  And He is even more eager to take your call.

Of the Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers

In the 1990s I was part of a congressional delegation to Argentina.  At that time the Argentine economy was growing strongly and steadily, inflation was low, the currency was pegged to the dollar, convertible 1-for-1.  Trade barriers were being lowered, commerce was booming.  I recall asking Argentines what could possibly darken what seemed to be a very bright future.  They were quick to reply:  “Here in Argentina we have no rule of law.  You can have no confidence in getting justice from the courts.”

That reminded me of Washington Irving’s observation on a European judge, from his famous work, The Alhambra:

It could not be denied, however, that he set a high value upon justice, for he sold it at its weight in gold.

Not long after that visit, the politics of income redistribution and confiscation threw the Argentine economy into turmoil, where it has remained.

I recently spoke with an economist friend of mine, who was waxing eloquent about the attractive monetary and tax policies in Bulgaria.  I remarked that this would probably invite foreign investment.  He replied, “No, there is no rule of law there.”

The point is that good economic policy cannot long survive inadequate legal safeguards.  Many businesses that made major investments in China, attracted by a market of a billion people, have learned that the lack of a reliable legal and justice system in China has undermined much of the business value they thought to find.  A similar story has been holding back investment and economic development in Russia.

Bringing that home, I would venture that concern for changing rules (or even lack of rules)—the substitution of arbitrary bureaucratic powers in Washington over objective rule of law—has been inhibiting more robust investment in the United States, a major cause for our current anemic economic recovery.

An ancient king in the Western Hemisphere, named Mosiah, warned, “because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.” (Mosiah 29:16)  Because men are not consistently just, freedom has historically rested upon rule by law rather than rule by men.

Fundamentally, that was the very reason for the American Revolution.  Our revolution was based on the rule of law, an assertion of the rule of law, a response to violations of the rule of law by the English king and parliament.  Most of the Declaration of Independence is a lengthy litany of violations of law by the English rulers.  The Revolution was designed to take power away from man and men and rest it upon laws and rights, soon to be secured by a written supreme law embodied in the Constitution.  Any erosion in the force and effect of the Constitution is an erosion of the rule of law and of the freedoms that rely upon law for their defense.

The Progressive Movement that thrived about a century ago, and found a major advocate in the federal government in President Woodrow Wilson, aggressively proposed an alternative to the rule of law.  This program was the Rule of Experts.  Their new view—and it really was a very old view though they dressed it up in modern-sounding rhetoric—was that there are Benign People, Experts, who know the process of modern government better than most people do, to whom we can safely yield governing authorities. 

It sounds akin to the ancient theory of Divine Right of Kings, that the monarchs of the world are chosen by God and endowed with greater wisdom and perspective than the average man and woman.  To their benign expertise and fatherly care was to be entrusted the governance of the rest of us.

The modern Rule of Experts people have much the same view, that these experts were endowed by their universities and other sources of expertise with ability far above that of most, and it would be wise to trust ourselves to their benign care.  Not very democratic, and in fact these Benign Experts make no secret of their impatience with the Congress and other constitutional brakes on arbitrary authority.

As King Mosiah wisely pointed out that men are not always just, it is also appropriate to recognize that putting men in government does not make them any more reliably wise than the rest of us.  The American Founders thought to address this problem by dividing political power among not only three branches in the Federal Government but also by embracing the federal system of dividing government with the States.

The current regulatory structure and program of the United States rest heavily on the idea that Benign Experts should be entrusted with authority for many of the big questions facing Americans and for many of the much smaller questions, too.  That is certainly the structure of the Dodd-Frank Act, to offer one recent, prominent example among many.

Charles Calomiris, of the Columbia University business school, described the theory of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulations this way:

The implicit theory behind these sorts of initiatives, to the extent that there is a theory, is that the recent crisis happened because regulatory standards were not quite complex enough, because the extensive discretionary authority of bank supervisors was not great enough, and because rules and regulations prohibiting or discouraging specific practices were not sufficiently extensive.

(Charles W. Calomiris, “Meaningful Banking Reform and Why it Is so Unlikely,” VoxEU, January 8, 2013)

This program of federal regulation has been imposed increasingly in contravention of the basic constitutional principle of separation of powers, by merging legislative, executive, and judicial authority in “independent” regulatory agencies.  The unelected federal regulator today decides the details and specifics of binding mandates, identifies violators of those regulations, assesses guilt, and applies penalties.

Taken together our current regulatory system, by merging rather than maintaining the separation of powers of the Constitution, is eroding the rule of law.  It is returning us to the age old practice of rule by men, with all of the potential for abuse of rights and freedoms, abuses that fill up most of the sadder pages of human history.

During the debate over the creation of the new financial consumer Bureau, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd boasted that with this new agency people would no longer have to come to Congress for the enactment of new consumer laws.  The Bureau would take care of all that.

There are serious operational flaws—too often overlooked—in the program of governance by Benign Experts.  First, the regulators are not dispassionate umpires, limited to calling the balls and strikes.  These umpires are also players in the game, the federal agencies each having their own set of particular interests and incentives that they take care of first.

Second, reliance on Benign Experts assumes an unproven, undemonstrated level of knowledge, insight, and forecasting skills.  AEI President Arthur Brooks, in his book, The Battle, provides one of many examples of this flaw:

Federal Reserve economists were still forecasting significant positive growth and moderate unemployment in May and June 2008.  They believed that economic growth in 2009 would be 2.4 percent, and unemployment would be 5.5 percent.  What we experienced instead was negative growth, double-digit unemployment, and the destruction of at least $50 trillion in worldwide wealth.  No one can get the numbers exactly right, to be sure.  But getting them this much wrong certainly lends a whole new meaning to the expression ‘margin of error.’

(Arthur C. Brooks, The Battle, p.46)

It is not that regulators are dumber than the rest of the population, but they are no smarter either.  The regulatory problems are increasingly too great for any designated group of humans to solve. 

Third flaw, mission creep:  power attracts power.  Even if the tasks are too great, require too much knowledge, insight, foresight, and other skills in unachievable degree, the regulators still take them on, especially if the task increases the reach and influence of the agency.  

I offer two examples from an example-rich environment.

Basel III capital rules started from a simple idea, that banks all around the world should be subject to the same capital standards.  Capital (the financial cushion a bank carries against losses) is one of the three key elements of sound banking, the other two being liquidity and earnings.  These international rules did not remain simple.  Developed by an international team of experts from around the world, who labored on them for years, the rules number hundreds of pages, affecting the entire financial structure and business model of a bank, any bank.  Congress was not involved and has no particular role in approving the rules.  When exposed to public review they attracted thousands of comment letters expressing dismay that they are a bad fit for the U.S. economy.  In the end, though, the regulators can go ahead with what they alone think is best.

A second example would be the Federal Reserve.  One hundred years ago this year the Fed was created with a specific, identifiable, and rather narrow purpose, to provide liquidity for the banking system in times of financial stress.  Before long, the Federal Reserve gained control of monetary policy and built up the practice of controlling interest rates.  Later, it was given the task of promoting maximum employment.  Under Dodd-Frank the Federal Reserve’s role in supervising banks and bank holding companies was expanded to supervising any financial business considered to be significant for financial stability.  Each of these powers has drawn the Federal Reserve away from its narrow, objective task, to broad fields of subjective authority. 

Perversely, this expansion of authority into more judgmental areas is eroding the independence of the Federal Reserve, making it yet one more political player in Washington, with responsibilities that far exceed human ability to fulfill, but which reach to every business and every home.  The Fed’s prolonged policy of keeping short-term interest rates at or about zero has penalized all who save and live off of their savings, transferring trillions of dollars from savers to borrowers, the biggest borrower being the Federal Government, a policy decided by a small group of Washington experts.

I offer a partial but simple solution to point us back toward strengthening the rule of law and reducing our exposure to the rule of man and men, however expert they might be.  Return the lawmaking and the policy decisions to the elected representatives.  It is a messy process, but exactly the messy process that the Founders intended to preserve freedom from the encroachment of arbitrary and oppressive government.  The regulators, which are theoretically part of the executive branch, should be left with the duty of implementing the laws and policy decisions that the elected and accountable representatives make. 

If Congress were required to write the rules and mandates and delegate to the executive agencies only the execution, the mandates of government would be circumscribed by the limitations of a legislative body forced to be directly accountable for what it has wrought.  It is easy for legislators to complain about bad regulatory decisions, when all too often these are decisions that Congress never should have delegated to regulators in the first place.

We would still have laws and regulations, but the laws might be more direct and specific, and perhaps fewer and surely smaller.  We would probably not have Dodd-Frank Acts that number thousands of pages read by no congressman or Senator, containing a cacophony of half-baked ideas and multiple solutions to the same problem, all left for the regulators to sort out.  

And legislators might recall this caution, from Thomas Paine:

Laws difficult to be executed cannot be generally good.

(Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man)

Of the Meaning of “Still” and the State of the Union

Notice how frequently these days when discussing the state of the American union, or any parts thereof, people rely upon the word “still.”  That is a bad sign.  When someone says, “I am still able to see my own doctor,” he or she implies that continued access is in doubt.  Rather than reassuring, it insinuates caution and reveals anxiety.  What do you hear when someone says, “At least I am still married”?

You do not commonly hear people using “still” in connection with things that they are sure of.  If a baseball player boasts, “I can still hit the ball out of the park,” is he likely to be in his prime or in the twilight of his career?

Allow me to offer for your consideration a dozen recent objects of STILL in public discourse about the condition of the nation:

·         The United States is still the largest economy in the world.

·         The United States still has the strongest/best military in the world.

·         The dollar is still the world’s reserve currency.

·         The United States still is a free country.

·         America still is the land of opportunity.

·         The Supreme Court still can be counted on to defend the Constitution.

·         By hard work and best effort you still can become anything you want.

·         My children will still have a better life than I have had.

·         My children will still live in a bigger house than the one I grew up in.

·         In this country you can still get the best healthcare.

·         America still has the deepest, most liquid, and efficient financial markets.

·         At least the air you breathe is still free.

Undoubtedly, you can think of more for the list.  Then, there are some things we do not hear people saying “still” about any more:

·         America is the best place to get an education.

·         Americans make the best cars.

·         I can freely speak my mind.

·         I can trust what I hear or read in the “news.”

·         You can count on the elections not being rigged.

I forbear going on.  You can add more if you wish.  There are some topics where the doubt is too palpable for people to venture “still” in their expressions.

If we leave the discussion at that, then we have a sad commentary on the sad state of the union.  The expression of “still” in our conversation can reveal a desperate clinging to the past with a forlorn wish that things will work out for the future, without doing the good works to make the good future happen.

I would suggest, though, that “still” can also mean “not over,” or “not gone.”  We need not settle for “still” and do nothing about it.  That which we value can be reclaimed from assault and reinforced, the erosion stopped, the tide turned.  After all, John Paul Jones is famous for winning a naval battle from the deck of his sinking—but still afloat—flagship, because he used it as a platform from which to regain what was lost.  “I have not yet begun to fight!” is still part of the American heritage.