Of Demagogues and Ideologues

 

Photo by Natalya Letunova on Unsplash

The demagogue has ever been the bane of democracies.  By definition, democracies rest upon the choices of the people.  When wisdom guides, democracies prosper.  As history shows, wisdom does not always prevail, and it never does when demagogues do.  Since the demagogue seeks his own power by taking power from others, once the people give him their voice they will be hard-pressed to get their power back; the democracy deteriorates into dictatorship, invoked in the name but never the reality of the rights of the people.

So I wrote some time ago.  Experience since then has reinforced the points I raised.  I wish that it had not, as such experience is painful.

On the early side of Summer an insightful essay in the June 2021 edition of The New Criterion illuminated the companion to the demagogue, the ideologue (see, David Guaspari, “Ideologists amok”).  Sometimes they can be the same person, as ideologues frequently employ demagoguery.

Reflecting on demagogues and ideologues, I more recently imagined a conversation with someone who displays characteristics of such a one.  As with a similar conversation of which I wrote in the past, I refer to my interlocutor as Burning Cynders, to preserve the fanciful nature.  I will leave it to you to imagine whether this reminds you of anyone.  It went something like this.

WAA:  I understand that you consider the United States to be a horribly oppressive place.

Cynders:  Horribly oppressive, and practically everyone is a victim.

WAA:  How can everyone be a victim?  If there are victims, there must be oppressors.

Cynders:  There are, but they are victims, too.  The oppression is systemic, that we all inherited.  Even the victims help maintain it.  I pause to allow you to grasp the vastness of the subject.

WAA:  Thank you.  Does that mean that you help to perpetuate the system, too?

Cynders:  I did, until I figured it out.  Now that I understand, I am trying to liberate people from it. 

WAA:  Are the millions of people immigrating to the United States coming here to be liberated from this oppression?

Cynders:  They are coming here because they know that I and those who are with me are working to throw off the oppression.

WAA:  Like why the Founders first came here.  I thought that people want to come to America for a freer, more prosperous life.  Which problems did they miss?

Cynders:  You don’t understand; your thought is distorted by the system.  No single problem can be solved without solving all problems.  You are part of the problem.

WAA:  That might be debatable.  How about we discuss what this land offers that attracts so many people.

Cynders:  The debate is over.  I’m here to teach you.  I know why they are coming.  They sense that I am working to throw off the oppression, to change the system, to change America.  Traumatized by their journey, the trauma raises their consciousness to the need for transformation.

WAA:  What key reforms do you have in mind?

Cynders:  I’m not interested in reform.  You cannot reform this system.  It is fundamentally corrupt and oppressive.  It must be torn down and built anew.  There will be a new system, without oppressors or oppressed.

WAA:  It seems to me there was a lot of tearing down in the twentieth century by the Lenins, Stalins, Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Maos, Pol Pots, and many others.  History shows us the ruins, but I don’t see the end of oppression in the experiments in bread-rationing socialism.

Cynders:  There were bold efforts, but they didn’t try hard enough or long enough.  As I said, oppression is in the whole system.  It’s in our culture, our religion, our laws, our families, our healthcare, our schools, in the language we use. 

WAA:  What will this new world look like? 

Cynders:  No one knows.  No one can tell you.  It may take generations to break down and build right.  This generation may not see the fruits of its work; still, it will bless future generations.  But can there be any sacrifice too great for a world without any oppression, with no victims, no oppressors?

WAA:  Sounds like you are out to alter the very nature of humanity.

Cynders:  You are not as hopeless as I feared.  Maybe you can be educated yet.

I pause the conversation there.  Time to play with my grandsons.

Of I and We

 Photo by Ilona Frey on Unsplash

Perhaps you have been chary of letting other people speak for you.  I know that I have.  I tend to bristle when someone announces what “we” are going to do without consulting with the “I”s in the “we.”  I feel much the same when I hear someone declare what “we” think without caring to learn what I and the other components of “we” think. 

Sometimes it is necessary or unavoidable to have someone speak for me.  I think of representative government.  A Congress of 330 million people will either get nothing done, or it will devolve into rule by a dictator who has, as an effective demagogue, arranged for enough of all of us to cede to him their will.  The city states of ancient Greece experienced both failings of genuine democracy—mob rule and dictatorship—and displayed how it never worked for long.

The Romans, inhabiting a city state governed by a king, threw off their king and created a democratic republic that flourished for several hundred years.  They elected Senators to represent them.  The Romans did not like a king who spoke for them without asking, but they thrived under a system of Senators who spoke for them, but only after obtaining the Romans’ permission.  That worked for centuries until the process of gaining permission—elections—became corrupted.  The Senators concurrently became corrupted, unwilling to face blame for making decisions.  The democratic republic was replaced by a government of emperors and Caesars.  Rome afterwards oscillated between civil strife and dictatorship on the way to collapse and invasion.

In the years following 1776 we, as a people of free individuals, united to shake off our king who claimed the privilege of referring to himself as “We” when speaking.  In 1787 “We the People,” through our chosen representatives, also established a democratic republic.  That followed the formation of democratic republics in each State.  Both sides in the debate to ratify the new Constitution emphasized keeping representatives tied closely to the represented.  Skeptics wondered whether that would actually happen or long endure if it did.

Individual people, representatives and represented, are imperfect, as the Founders understood.  We each prize our individuality and the liberty to live it.  We each can also be tempted to exert our will over others.  Consider the occasional neighborhood “WE BELIEVE” yard signs.  Are these an expression of personal faith or a declaration that you and I ought to consider ourselves included in the “WE”?  I wonder about the latter when I see decrees by federal officials, state governors, and local mayors extending government force to the seemingly anodyne slogans ornamenting the signs.  The man who today sits in the oval office, who would not dare to call himself a czar, has appointed a man (previously rejected by a national election) to be the nation’s “Climate Czar.”

We are scheduled to reach 250 years of our democratic republic when the 17-year cicadas next return.  Will they emerge in a nation still governed by “We the People”?  Or might they come out of the ground where the voices of the I’s have been subsumed by other Czars who announce what We think, do, and say?  Creeping political correctness, which has been chastising free speech for decades, telling us what not to say, has lately become enforced by governments, workplaces, media, and schools.  As the prophet Isaiah warned, a man is made “an offender for a word” (Isaiah 29:21).            

By the way, the titles “Czar” and “Kaiser” are derivatives of the Latin title “Caesar.”

Of Humanism and Religious Freedom

Can a creed that claims to be non-religious be itself a religion?  Is the professed irreligion of the leading social elites not only a religion but America’s state religion, reinforced by Federal, state, and local governments?

Consider a typical school commencement ceremony, whether college or high school.  A speaker declares that we must leave all talk of God behind, toss into the dustbin the dogmas of religion that divide us, and embrace a view of life that brings people together in a common cause of humanity, a village of fellow passengers on this tiny planet as it wends its course through the universe.  At another similar commencement ceremony a different speaker declares that we should rise above the hates and lusts of mankind and embrace the love of God, join together in our common heritage as children of the family of God, learning to live with each other here that we may all the better live with our Heavenly Father in the eternities.  Which of these, today, is likely to receive the greater applause and public commendation?  Which of these speakers, on the other hand, is more likely to be censored and not even permitted to present his views, perhaps under threat of a lawsuit?  Or, to make the question easier to answer, which is more likely to receive favorable coverage in the media?

Expressions of skepticism about God and His existence are embraced, praised, and rewarded in contemporary American society.  Declarations of faith in God meet anything from patronizing smiles, to hostility, to punitive sanctions under the prevailing culture.  The predominant American society, while professing to be neutral about religion, has some very strong opinions about religion and its expression.

In a land of constitutional free speech, that allows no state religion, this should seem an odd discussion, a throwback to history.  Cursory familiarity with the historical chronicle would bring to mind other places and times when an incautious word on religion could earn a speaker severe punishment, not excluding cruel execution.  Deviation from the local religion was certainly risky business anciently.  We also may recall tales of the Spanish Inquisition and the bloody controversies of the Protestant Reformation, as well as the perennial anti-Semitism that has followed the House of Israel throughout its Diaspora.  Social revolutions have dealt harshly with religion, from the French revolution to every communist regime, while clumsily endeavoring to create new secular religions (that failed miserably to engage adherents).

The malodorous plant of state religion followed the colonists to America, but it had trouble taking root, particularly among the English colonies.  The freedom of wide open spaces, and the need for an armed populace, made oppressive government difficult to maintain.  Thomas Jefferson considered the establishment of legal guaranties of religious freedom in Virginia to be among his life’s most important achievements (the other being the founding of the University of Virginia).  The principle of that law was later made a part of the United States Constitution with the adoption of the First Amendment.

The public outcry from media and politicians (with little echo from the general populace) over recent efforts of states to reinforce freedom of religion against encroachments by regulatory dicta and court edicts strongly suggests that there is one—and only one—protected national religion in the United States today.  It needs no protection offered by these state laws, because its tenets are the motivating heart of the government actions threatening all of the other religions.  It goes by many names—as do many broad religions—and includes a variety of sects, also not uncommon among religions.  For facility of discussion, I will refer to just one of its appellations, Humanism.

The religion of Humanism has a core belief—shared by all of its sects and denominations—that man is the measure of everything.  Man decides what is truth, what is good, what is real.  Yes, that is more than a bit narcissistic, which is probably the key to its attraction, particularly among the intelligentsia and the elites.  The chief corollary to this main tenet is that God does not matter, whether you believe in Him or not (some Humanist sects tolerate a belief in God or some sort of Supreme Being for reasons of nostalgia and to broaden popular acceptance).

Humanism has an elaborate set of dogmas, commandments, taboos, and rituals.  It has its own liturgical language, which is required to be used, for example, in all doctoral dissertations—especially those in the social sciences, though its linguistic hegemony is now reaching to hard sciences as well—and in more colloquial versions observed by all media outlets, especially broadcast journalism.  Humanism has its sacred texts along with its college of revered and beatified Humanists of yore.

I was going to write that Humanism has its own seminaries, but, frankly, that includes nearly all colleges and universities in the nation.  The clergy of Humanism is largely self-appointed, though it has intricate, Byzantine hierarchies, with no one at the top for long, though all presume to speak for everyone.  The clergy are supported by varieties of orders of acolytes and sycophants, the gathering of disciples a key method of rising in Humanism’s hierarchy, and the loss of disciples a sure path to disfavor and obscurity.

While most religions preach exceptionalism, exclusivity, or preeminence, whether in faith or favor with God, Humanism may be the most intolerant of all.  Being the state religion, it uses the full power of legislatures, regulators, law enforcement agencies, and the courts to advance its cause and bring in to line people who disagree with its tenets and prescriptions, who violate any of its taboos—particularly who utter any of its taboo words—or who remark on the foibles of its revered demigods.  Significantly, any practice by any other religion that interferes with Humanism must yield to Humanist demands, not excluding the profligate use of federal, state, and local moneys to fund its projects, prescriptions, and priests.

Therein lies the explanation for both the desire of various state legislatures to reaffirm religious freedom and the inveterate and fierce hostility to these efforts from the media and a bevy of national celebrities.  Freedom of religious belief and practice is a threat only to an established national religion, erecting obstacles to forced conformity with the state church. Failure of efforts to reaffirm the protections of the First Amendment will result in an increasingly intimidating society, constraining intellectual freedom and unauthorized religious observance to a degree unseen in the United States since 1787.

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  Those words are the most prominent inscription in the Jefferson Memorial.  Jefferson might get into trouble saying such a thing at a modern commencement ceremony at the University of Virginia. 

Of Blasphemy and Racism

Blasphemy!  Heresy!  Treason!  Racism!  All loaded words, used less to convey meaning than for their effect as weapons.  Few weapons in history have been as powerful.  They have killed thousands, perhaps millions, and silenced many more.  “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”  These will.  They are intended to.

Consider “blasphemy.”  It is a common hammer of religious leaders who are doubtful of their deity’s ability to defend himself.  These nervous clerics and acolytes step in to threaten and, where they can, inflict the harshest penalties against any and all they accuse of “blasphemy,” which usually means saying anything that the listeners consider untoward or disrespectful vis-à-vis their deity.  The harshness of the penalties, and the vagueness of what qualifies as an infraction, create a terror that intimidates both speech and action among others, which is the basic purpose of the label.  The religious leaders of Judea during the days of Jesus’ mortal ministry repeatedly tried to silence Him by hurling “blasphemy” at Him.   On the day of His death, they cried blasphemy to stir up the anger of the population—although they used another word, “treason,” when addressing the Roman authorities.  Several dozen nations today (with little opposition from the U.S. State Department or other executive branch officials) are seeking to make blasphemy a globally recognized crime, at least when touching upon Islam or its sensitivities.

“Heresy” has similar uses.  Rather than a crime of the impious, it is invoked in pious disagreements about whom or what is sacred.  The Spanish Inquisition comes readily to mind.  The accusation seems to be most commonly employed by those who lack confidence in the convincing power of their doctrines when faced with competing ones.  “Heresy” is intended to close ears, “heretic” to silence speakers, both intended to end the debate.

Next we come to “treason,” which can be a real phenomenon and a genuine crime against the nation or people, and when proved and the traitor caught usually answered with stern—if not brutal—penalties.  Genuine treason puts the nation or community at risk by exposing weaknesses to enemies. 

In former times, as well as in nations governed by authoritarian regimes, “treason” has been invoked, however, less to label traitors to the state and the society as to subdue opponents to the supreme leader.  Kings, emperors, czars, dictators, and others of the ilk sit nervously on their thrones—and for good reason.  They lack legitimacy yet enjoy immense power (or its illusion), which lures other would-be despots.  Nearly every one of the Roman emperors, for example, met death at human hands.  The Soviet Union never had a legitimate transfer of power from one boss to the next.  Tyrants, therefore, have little tolerance for opposition and are credulous of every rumor of resistance.  That makes accusations of “treason” powerful tools of terror for scoundrels in such societies to employ to settle grudges, dispose of enemies, steal lands and wealth, or otherwise gain advantage.  Many innocents have been so victimized.

Which brings us to “racism.”  This is a modern weaponized word.  Originally coined to identify people who would justify plunder and oppression by employing racial prejudices, it has been preserved long after such plans and schemes are suppressed by law and proscribed by social convention.  Indeed, the word only works as a weapon because of the universal social opprobrium already attached to it.  Its power as an epithet comes because no one in civil society considers it tolerable, any actual existence a bizarre aberration.  Calling someone “racist” is tantamount to accusing him of being unfit for public association and worthy of ostracism.  It is therefore used most commonly today, like the use throughout history of the other weapon words, to end debate, to intimidate opponents, to plunder wealth, and in general to gain advantage.  “Racism” is the modern world’s “blasphemy,” “heresy,” and even “treason.”  “Racism” is used to cause hurt, even where the absence of authentic racism causes none.  Worse, it is used by real racists to shield or camouflage their own bigotry.

Employed as a weapon word, racism is losing meaning.  When was the last time you heard a reasoned discussion and debate of racism?  Intellectual dialog is avoided for fear that raising the subject in an impartial way will court exposure to accusation, much as discussion of blasphemy, heresy, and treason in times past.  What is left, for example, when racism no longer means conscious prejudicial action but is applied—as it is by the Obama Administration—to mean manufactured statistical discrepancies among people who admittedly have no intention to act in a prejudicial manner? 

For the wielders of the weapon, the meaning of racism must be kept general and undefined to maximize the number of potential targets.  Feeding the outrage attached to it is a constant labor as is constantly finding new eruptions of racism where none exist.  The recognition of racism (especially where it is absent) must be automatic and assumed proven when employed—addressed if at all only by the mea culpa of the accused, followed by public contrition and the ceding of wealth or advantage to the accusers.

Where, I wonder, does the real racism lie?  Can racial distinction and prejudice wither when they are regularly conjured for personal advantage?   What does that do to a society where laws and culture already universally hold racism in contempt?  What is the appropriate term for the moguls of the racism industry who prosper by the preservation and promotion of racism?  When will the public immolations for private gain end?

Of Compromises and Congresses

The beginning days of 2015 have brought the convening of a new American Congress.  It is fair to say that expectations and skepticism are high. 

Both are merited.  Our Constitution was inaugurated with high expectations, not that the end to all problems was at the door but that the means were available to deal effectively with the problems of government for the new nation.  The people who wrote the Constitution and those involved with implementing it (many the same people) were also deeply skeptical of government, including the one that they had just created.  Memorable and personal experiences had shaped their skepticism.  For that reason, the adoption of the Constitution had been a close thing, the opposition coming chiefly from those who thought that it imposed too much government on the people.  There may have been some contemporary views that the proposed national government would be too weak and light, but I have not found any examples.

No surprise, then, that an early use of the new Constitution was to adopt the Bill of Rights—a set of fundamental rights to protect individual people from their government.  If this new government were really self-government (a misconception reflected today in such bromides as, “Don’t worry about the national debt, we owe it to ourselves,” and “we should not fear the government because we are the government,” as well as much similar foolishness), then these first ten amendments would all be unnecessary.  They have since proven to be very necessary, sometimes breached by our government, but more often employed to preserve and protect us from government offense.

Much as with the convening of the First Congress in 1789, the 114^th Congress convenes after a troubled period of bad government.  Hopes and wishes abound that errors can be corrected, freedoms restored, troubles addressed.  As then, so today patience is in order.

A great virtue of our Constitution, an intentional feature, is that no one person can do much, for good or ill, in the federal government.  It takes a lot of people cooperating together to get things done.  Both Houses of Congress, usually with significant majorities, must agree to identical—word for word identical—legislation for it to be sent to the President, who must agree enough to add his signature to make it law.  And then the President and his colleagues in the executive branch must actually execute the law, which as we are seeing with this President is no sure thing, despite a solemn oath to do so.

All of that coming together of many people, with varying ideas and backgrounds and interests, seldom happens quickly.  For a people who do not need a lot of laws and direction from government to know how to live their lives, that is a fact to be celebrated.  As the Founders envisioned, making law requires compromise and accommodation of the many interests of the many who compose our great nation.  That takes time, as it should. 

It is a mistake to banish the use of compromise from republican government.  Those who would eschew compromise in our Republic would doom us to the fate of the Roman Republic.  The members of the Roman Senate lost the ability or willingness to compromise.  In so doing, they were doomed to inaction—not just slow deliberation—in the face of crisis, followed by reliance upon dictators, whom they fancied they could limit if not control.  They sometimes chose wise men, sometimes they trusted their liberties to demagogues, invested with nearly unilateral authority for an entire year.  The Republic and Roman freedom regressively devolved into the rule of the Caesars.

I understand the impatience that many have with compromise, people who would wish bold and decisive action in response to the would-be Caesar currently in the White House.  To these I would say, do not despair of the strength of the Constitution, even as the chief executive seeks to violate it.  In such times strengthening the Constitution and reinforcement of its checks and balances are the orders of the day, not further erosion of accommodation and compromise that have held our nation together (even through a Civil War) for two hundred years and more.  It is true that some compromises are bad; despotisms or anarchies are not much good.

One of the most important compromises involves idealism and realism.  American legislation requires a marriage of idealism and realism.  Idealism can offer the vision of a free and prosperous nation and the inspiration to action to protect and promote our liberties.  Realism, when operating in the light of idealism, focuses our work on what can be achieved now, without exhausting our energies and resources on quixotic quests that may do little more than tear the national fabric.  Realism would teach that much of the policy errors of years will take years to unravel.  With idealism and realism together, we can know what can and should be done today to make things better and get national policy moving in the right direction.

While a realistic view of the doable is essential to good legislating in a Congress of free men and women, the key and fundamental principles of our idealism help us discern a good compromise—one that makes things better and enables further progress—from a compromise that walks us closer to the abyss.  President Reagan made many compromises, but he had a vision and knew where he was going, each compromise uniting our nation for more prosperity, greater freedom, and stronger security.

We should rejoice that no one in the Republic by himself can bring about much change, however well meaning.  That virtue of our Constitution is why it has taken many steps and many mistakes to come to the many calamities our nation now confronts.  In the same way, because of this Constitution, it will take seemingly many steps along the way to optimal answers.  Every reason to be about the work and not tire of it.

Of Presidents and Derelicts

Barack Obama is no fan of the Constitution.  He has been known to criticize it for its focus on limiting government, for telling governments what they can and cannot do.  He prefers a Constitution that focuses more on telling governments what they should do, at least telling governments to do what he would like, including seeing to the “redistribution of wealth,” or what he calls elsewhere “redistributive change.”

Of course, that is a mischaracterization.  Not a mischaracterization of Obama’s views but of what the Constitution says.  It does limit government, but it also gives government specific responsibilities and the power to exercise those responsibilities.  Article I, Section 8 provides a very clear list of the federal government’s duties.  It is noteworthy that those enumerated responsibilities and powers are in the Article that establishes the Congress.  The list includes such things as providing for the common defense, borrowing and paying government debts, regulating foreign and interstate commerce, establishing standards for weights and measures, and so forth.

There are plenty of other provisions that limit the powers of the government and how it operates.  The Constitution is a balance of governmental duties within a structure intended carefully to limit the government.  As a limited government our Republic has prospered.  It has struggled either when its duties were neglected (as in the days of President Buchanan, who did nothing while he watched state after state rebel from the Union) or when the limitations have been eroded (as we have witnessed through much of the twentieth century and in the first 14 years of the twenty-first).

The President has specific powers and duties, too, nearly all of which are carefully linked with the role of the Congress.  For example, while the President does not make the laws—Article I, Section 1 gives “All legislative Powers” exclusively to the Congress—the President is authorized to make proposals to Congress and has the authority to veto legislation (but not change it) that Congress has approved.  Once an act of Congress becomes law, the President then has the explicit obligation to, “take Care that the Laws be fully executed” (Article II, Section 3).  

Note the words, “fully executed”.  The President takes an oath to fulfill those duties, and nowhere in oath or Constitution is the President authorized to execute the laws only as much as he likes or agrees with them.  Once something has become a law, the President may not set aside this or that part of the law or decide that he will only enforce the law so far.  His obligation is to take Care that the laws are fully executed.

Average Americans may not like this or that provision of law, but we are not at liberty to ignore any law that applies to us just because we do not like it.  The President is not exempt from that common responsibility of all citizens, either. As the chief government executive, who sought to hold his high office of public responsibility, he is even more obligated not only to obey the laws but to execute them, fully.  The President may not make the laws, he may not amend the laws, he may not change the laws, and he may not disregard the laws.  His duty is to execute the laws, and when he does not he is derelict in his duties. 

This is all in accordance with the important division of labor, the separation of powers that the Founders put into the very structure of the Constitution to combat the tendency of all humans to abuse power once it comes into their hands.  By dividing the power of government among three separate but coequal branches, dividing legislative power even further between House and Senate, and yet again separating government power between federal and state governments, the Founders went to clear and elaborate lengths to create checks and balances. 

Under the American system of government no branch, no person, no group of people in government, are to be able to do very much on their own without getting the other elements of government to go along.  Where they are not able to agree, where there is no consensus, for the safety of our freedoms government is prevented by constitutional law from moving forward unless substantial consensus among the different branches can be reached.  Those checks and balances again and again, throughout the more than two centuries of our Constitution, have forced the very human people in government to revisit their differences and come to terms with one another, however much they may disagree and be disagreeable.  There is safety for you and me in that.  And it helps keep our Union together, repeatedly forcing our leaders (and the parts of the nation that they represent and whose authority they exercise) to work with one another, like it or not.

Recently, President Obama has expressed impatience with the Constitution’s checks and balances.  After all, he personally, in and of himself, embodies an entire branch of government.  The other branches, Congress and the courts, have many different people with a messy variety of ideas.  President Obama complains that Congress cannot decide what it wants to do as quickly as he can.  In his view, why wait? 

By design, Congress of course has something of a multiple personality.  It is a gathering of elected representatives, reflecting the diversity of views among the people of the nation.  Appropriately, it takes time to build a consensus that accommodates those views, as it should.  But President Obama cannot wait.  He sees the need to accommodate no ideas other than his own.  He has decided that on this issue or that—today it is immigration laws—there is a limit, defined by himself, as to how much time Congress can take to consider things.  When time is up, he, the executive branch, will take the matter into his own hands, and pretend to the authority to do it.

His tool of choice today is to abjure his duty to execute the laws fully and instead to execute them partially, just to the extent and manner that suit his own desires, as he engages in another round of redistributive change.  That he is endeavoring to violate rather than execute our national, founding law, and his constitutional oath of office, apparently does not trouble him.  It is the Constitution itself that troubles him. 

But from where does he think he gets his authority to do anything.  When he breaks the Constitution, does he not break his very authority to act in the office that the Constitution created?

Of Minorities and Society

The saddest chapters of history chronicle the breakdown of human society.  Rights are abused, the innocent—if innocence is allowed to exist—are trampled.  Poverty, hatred, violence, and uncontrolled human passion prevail.  Destruction and degradation, physical and moral, replace human progress.

All society, except that of master to slave, relies upon an element of free association.  Societies may have more or less elements of coercion as well, but it is the element of free association that allows the society to continue, that motivates its members to acquiesce in or even encourage the society’s continuation.  Free, voluntary association is what gives a society its legitimacy.  Without it, there is no society, just a group of people ruled by one coterie of thugs or another. 

Cooperation in society cannot be taken for granted.  When it is, when free cooperation, instead of being nurtured and encouraged, is replaced by coercive rules and compulsion, particularly rules and compulsion designed to benefit some at the expense of others, society declines, people interact more by will of others than by their own volition.  With time either the situation is redressed or the society disintegrates, often to be conquered from the outside when its internal strength has turned to weakness.

In its latter years imperial China was prey to numerous foreign incursions because its society was a mighty empty shell, old traditions surrounding an empire of competing warlords.  Ancient Greece, which twice when united proved too much for the Persian empire, became relatively easy prey to the Romans after the ties of Greek society had become tired and weak.  Rome, in its turn, after a thousand years, was enormously wealthy but mightily weak in the internal strength to repel the roaming barbarians, vibrant societies powerful in their own internal cohesion.  Much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America today remains mired in poverty from the inability of relatively young countries to develop cooperative societies that encourage the generation of wealth and its application to promote prosperity for the present and for the future.

With cooperation at the core of successful society, one would think that democracies must be the most successful.  History records otherwise.  There are no historical examples of a successful democracy, at least not one that lasted for long enough to matter.  Like a match set to paper, democracies flare up brightly into power and glory but all too soon die away to ashes. 

The problem with democracies has been that all too quickly the majority in the democracy learns that it can become wealthy by robbing the minority, under camouflage of statutes and government.  That only lasts until either the minority successfully rebels, becomes a majority in its turn, or the wealth of the minority is exhausted.  In reaction, the majority may seek to preserve its advantages by yielding to a dictator—a “mouth” for the majority—to govern in the name of the majority to discern and express its will.  Few of these dictators have resisted the temptation to wear the mask of the majority to govern for the benefit of themselves and their cronies.  That has been the case for every communist government, without exception.   

 

But, is it not right and just for the majority to prevail?  Perhaps, but to prevail over what?  Everything?  Consider:  if majority rule is applied to deprive the minority of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why should the minority cooperate?  All that such society offers them is slavery, unrequited labor and service to fill another’s belly and pockets.  In a pure democracy, there is no check on majority avarice, no refuge for the minority.  The majority must always have its way.

Republics, however, are built upon a foundation of minority rights.  Republican governments are granted only limited powers, exercised by representatives of the people, within boundaries beyond which the government may not go.  A written constitution serves to enshrine and strengthen those rights against violation by the majority.  The system gives a stake to all—not just the current rulers—in the continuation and strengthening of the society.  No democracy, hereditary monarchy, or dictatorship can provide that.

In a nation as great and diverse as the United States everyone is part of a minority.  Whether we consider age, ethnic background, religion, geography, culture, profession, or a multitude of other distinctions, we are a host of minorities.  We can only come together and remain as a nation, strong and vibrant, if we are confident of protection in our minority rights, for protecting minority rights in America means protecting everyone’s rights.  That is why the Founders proposed and the nation embraced a Republic formed on a federal structure of divided and limited government.

In that context, what are we to make of the current direction of American society?  Are we preserving the Republic?  Does our society feel like it is coming together?  Recent public opinion polls find that more than 60% of Americans believe the nation to be going in the wrong direction.  In another poll, a mere 22% believe that the current government rules with the consent of the governed. 

What is the national political leadership doing about this?  We have a President who aggressively pursues a variety of programs that have in common the taking of wealth from one minority segment of the nation to reward others.  These wealth transfers are lionized for the undenied purpose of political and electoral advantage for the President and his supporters. 

You will recognize the pattern.  A crisis is discovered by the President, and an industry or group is demonized in public speeches and echoed in the establishment media as causing the problem and/or standing in the way of its solution.  A plan is announced that involves confiscations from the demonized industry or group to fund benefices bestowed on Administration favorites.

Consider a few examples of many.  Global warming is hailed as an imminent crisis with disastrous consequences; the coal, oil, and gas industries are identified as the foes of progress; and a variety of taxes and other restrictive policies are proposed, together with planned subsidies for businesses and companies favored by the White House.  Banks are declared to be the nefarious forces behind the recent recession, new laws and regulations are applied that confiscate billions of dollars from the industry, much of which is then channeled to hedge funds and other political allies of the administration.  Some millions of people are discovered to be without health insurance, doctors and the health insurance industry—among others—are fingered as being at the root of the problem, so a major overhaul of the entire structure of the health system is enacted that favors some at the expense of others.  Administration cronies receive lucrative contracts to develop and administer the new system.  There are many other examples, large and small, in education, welfare, housing, transportation, law enforcement, and many other government programs.

Is there any wonder that there is gridlock in the national government, when policy after policy is aimed at transferring wealth from some to reward others?  Where is the room for cooperation and compromise, when the issue is how much of your family’s wealth is to be taken and given to someone else?  The Roman Republic fell into gridlock after decades of appeals to mass acclaim for schemes of popular distribution of public plunder.  It ended in the triumph of the Caesars, and later their eventual fall to the barbarians.  It is perilous to abuse social comity. 

President Obama has announced the transfer of wealth to be the chief focus for the remaining three years of his administration.  Can our society weather that?

Of Limited Freedom and Limited Government

I live and work near the belly of the beast, and I can report that these days he is not happy.  His belly is rumbling.  He has eaten more than he can digest.  Watch out, he may throw up.  He is already belching.

The federal government is not working, we know and see.  Not only is it not working as was intended when it was created by the States, it is not working as designed and over designed in subsequent years.  The federal government cannot manage the national parks, the welfare system is breaking down, the national transportation infrastructure takes in more money and yet the signs of dysfunction and decay on roads, rails, and bridges are increasingly apparent.  Banks are regulated with thousands of rules while the banking industry continues to shrink:  we have fewer banks today than we did in 1891, and their share of the financial markets has been dwindling for decades.  So much of what the federal government touches turns to rust and ruin.

Yet the federal government keeps reaching out for more, undeterred by its failures.  The Environmental Protection Agency aggressively imposes restrictions on the air we exhale, the Food and Drug Administration announces plans to control the fat in our foods, the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has decided what kind of mortgages lenders can make and what kind of people can get them (acknowledging that many who qualify today will be outside the boundaries of federal standards in 2014).

You can augment this brief sampling of a longer list from your own experiences.  This is nothing new, other than perhaps in frequency and intensity.  If there is a virtue in Obamacare it may be that its unworkability and its increasingly universal hurt are demonstrating broadly what many have been feeling individually.

Demonstrating the hurt is not the same as redressing it.  The beast, however ill, will not cheerfully surrender its prey.  During the debate over ratification of the Constitution, one commenter, writing in the Philadelphia newspaper Independent Gazetteer (October 12, 1787), observed, “People once possessed of power are always loth to part with it”, and then warned that the Feds could not be counted on, by their own volition, to do “any thing which shall derogate from their own authority and importance . . . or give back to the people any part of those privileges which they have once parted with”.  If that was predictable in 1787, it is painfully apparent today.  Perhaps the clearest example is how the Washington power elites have exempted themselves and their cronies from the application of Obamacare while continuing to inflict it on the rest.

And yet, Obamacare is the hurt that keeps on hurting.  People will not get over it or get used to it.  Its pain and suffering will be felt again and again with each new illness, every new tax, as its strictures reduce availability, affordability, and quality of wellbeing.  Wave after wave of new harm will come, astonishing its supporters and augmenting the ranks of its victims until it is addressed.

Americans, much like other people, will put up with much before they are roused to action.  Unlike for many other people, our Constitution gives us avenues for action.  The Constitution embodies the concept of continual redress within the rule of law to make appeal to extremities outside of the rule of law unnecessary and unthinkable, so long as the principles of the Constitution retain their vitality. 

The core principle of the Constitution is limited government, designed to protect the growth and expansion of human freedom.  Increasingly, for about a century, the “progressives” in Washington have turned public affairs on their heads.  Human freedom has been the focus of limitation, while government enjoyed constant growth and expansion.  The end seems approaching, either of the ability of government to manage what it has taken on, or perhaps (and hopefully) when the holders of power can no longer convince enough people that it is all for their own good.  Limitation on government may return in vogue as promises of government solutions to feed the beast ring ever more hollow.

The Philadelphia writer of 1787, whom I cited above, was a critic of the Constitution, because he believed it impossible that the power gathered in by the federal government could be wrested from its hands.  I remain hopeful that it still can be.  Nothing else will work.

Of Global Poverty and Washington’s Struggles

It was tough getting out of Washington this evening.  You might suppose that with the partial shut down of the federal government, traffic in Washington would be on the light side.  I have not seen much evidence of it on the streets of the city or in the Washington suburbs.  I know that many, many people must be out of work, because the establishment media keep saying so, television and radio.

I do not refer, however, to experiencing the normal evening outbound Washington traffic.  Traffic was unusually heavy today, especially on 19^th Street, N.W., south of Pennsylvania Avenue.  The world financial diplomats are back in town to attend fancy parties in the cause of poverty.  For several blocks the lanes were clogged, nose to tail, with their black limousines.  The global party goers gather in D.C. each October two out of every three years (they take one year off to congregate somewhere else for variety).  The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are holding their annual meetings as they have for going on 70 years.

Inching along 19^th Street, which is Main Street for the World Bank and the IMF (they have bought up nearly all of the Washington real estate between the White House complex and George Washington University), I was able to have a long, good study of a series of monster posters draping the north side of one of the World Bank office buildings, posters reaching no less than eight stories high, proclaiming the simple bold motto, “End Poverty.”  That is a good idea, probably the product of a high level committee of experts tasked with developing a theme for the Annual Meetings.  It conveys a sense of purpose.  The professional poverty bureaucrats have done little to end global poverty, but they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to maintain it—at least judging by the results. 

In all fairness, perhaps the annual World Bank/IMF festivities help to fight poverty in the Capital Region.  Washington, D.C., and the Maryland and Virginia suburbs are already thriving from the Administration’s economic stimulus program.  They have some of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation, with the exception of the pockets where the energy fracking revolution is booming.  Nevertheless, at least for a while Washington is drawing money from the rest of the World as it does every day from the rest of the United States.

Focusing on ending poverty is a good idea, and there are ways to do it.  Undoubtedly, much of the discussion, however, in the IMF and World Bank meetings this week has focused on the budget and economic crisis in the United States.  “Dysfunctional” is surely a common word used in conversation by the visiting diplomats in the salons to describe the condition of the U.S. Government, since that is the label regularly applied by the establishment media talking heads, and it would resonate.  The vast majority of the financial officials attending come from nations where government is much more efficient.  Their economies may be dysfunctional, but their governments are models of efficiency.  What the big guy in the big office in the big house wants he gets. 

The American system is a lot messier.  The big guy in the room without corners in the big White House does not seem to be getting what he wants, at least not since the 2010 election.  After that election that put a majority of opposition Republicans in control of the House of Representatives and reelected them in 2012, he has declared his intention to govern without Congress. 

The last couple of weeks have brought home to the President that he cannot quite do without Congress.  Congress still has some role, albeit one greatly diminished from that extended to it by the Constitution.  It turns out that the “government shutdown” actually has shut down no more than 17% of Federal Government operations; 83% continues to pump along spending money with no attention by Congress needed. 

The chief executive is trying to magnify that 17% by making its absence as painful as possible, the rest of us the insect absorbing the sun’s rays under the focus of the glass in the President’s hand.  The executive hope is that public pressure will force the Congress to surrender what remains of its authority and agree to whatever the President demands, backing away from asserting any policy role of its own.  Just give the President a clean bill to keep doing what he has been doing, and move along.

Congress is not making that easy, passing bill after bill to open or ameliorate this or that hardship.  The President has rejected nearly every effort.  Of course, that is odd if you buy the rhetoric from the White House that the Congress has taken hostages.  Working with that metaphor, I know of no hostage examples where anyone having the interests of the hostages at heart would object to release of any one of them.  Who would send the released hostages back to their captors and say, “we will receive no freed hostages until you free them all”?  Yet that is the White House position.  Who is hurt by that?

You would not hear such questioning from the establishment media.  They are doing their best to hide the fact that what we are experiencing is a constitutional crisis, a battle that our Founders anticipated, which is why they created a structure of shared power that requires cooperation of all branches and domination by none.  The media are happy demeaning the struggle as a sporting event with winners and losers, and time clocks, and sports commentators, and favorite teams.

They miss the central point.  We cannot suffer to have any team “win”, and we are not spectators at a stadium.  Our freedom is at stake.  The design of the Constitution is that there can be little governing without all three branches being involved, the whole nation and its many parts represented.  Today we are engaged in a great struggle testing whether that structure of government, limited to prevent tyranny by either the President, the Congress, or the Courts, can endure.  So far it has.  The partial government shut down is the evidence.  Were that to end by either one branch or the other capitulating—rather than House, Senate, and President coming together—it is our freedom that would suffer.  There would remain much less check on the arbitrary and capricious actions of the victor.

Many of the elite financial diplomats at the World Bank/IMF meetings would understand that result and feel right at home.  American government, for 200 years a mystery to the rest of the world, would then become much more understandable and familiar to them.

Of Closed Governments and Coming Together

Battered and bruised and stretched and torn, our Constitution still has life in it.  One of its central principles is that no one person can do much by himself in Washington, for good or ill.  We are watching that play out in this year’s appropriations process.  We see that it is impossible for one man, the President, to make a new law.  It is similarly impossible for one House of Congress, whether Senate or House of Representatives, to do so alone.

Under the Constitution, all appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives, where they are given their initial shape and substance.  Next, the Senate must concur or amend.  If the Senate chooses to amend, the bill goes back to the House, which can either agree to the Senate amendment, disagree, or disagree with a further amendment.  If there is disagreement, representatives from House and Senate can meet to resolve those differences.  If they do and succeed, then each House, first one and then the other, passes the bill, after which it is sent on to the President.

It is still not a new law.  According to the Constitution, the President may not amend the bill that has passed both Houses of the Congress.  He can choose to sign it, making it a law.  It does not become a law unless he does.  He can choose to veto it.  In the latter case it goes back to the Congress, where it can only become law if both Houses override the President’s veto.

I lay this process out in some detail, because to listen to the institutional media and most of the pundits you might think that they have all forgotten, or never learned, how the constitutional process of making laws works.  It is not an easy process.  In fact it was meant to be difficult.  Some seem to wish it were easy, at least for enacting the policies that they favor.  They would wish to make one or more constitutional parties to law making redundant and of no separate account or purpose other than to do the will of their favorite other.  They should, instead, take comfort that it is easier to defeat policies that they oppose.

The genius of the Constitution for making laws is that it requires three separate parties of people, sometimes with very different views, to come together to make anything a law.  The Founders made it difficult because they were not very fond of new laws.  They knew that an abundance of laws could mean a scarcity of freedom.  And so it is today, but it has taken over 200 years to build up the awesome pile of laws that regulate so much of our lives, and yet it still is harder to make a new law than many would wish.

Our Constitution requires that a lot of people have to work together to make a new law.  When they do not, nothing happens.  That is why much of the federal government has run out of money and has “shut down.”  A new law is needed to appropriate the money for these shuttered parts of the federal government to open. 

They will continue to be without operating money until the elected representatives in the House and Senate and the President work together to make a new law.  The Constitution forces them to work together.  Nothing will happen until they do, whether that takes a day, a week, or longer.  The Constitution requires sufficient cooperation for law making.  For either House, or Senate, or President to be able to make laws without the other would impose the tyranny of one set of views over the rest.  The Constitution will not allow that.  The Constitution forces a meeting of the minds, either by persuasion or by compromise, or in practice some of both.

The Constitution is a beautiful thing.  I rejoice in it.  I can be patient for a while as it does its work and forces our elected leaders to come together.  The issue is not keeping parks open. The issue is preserving our freedom and our society.  The Constitution still has some power to do that.

Of American Exceptionalism and Our Chief Executive

Two colleagues and I recently had an Internet conversation.  The first brought up the question of American exceptionalism, wondering what it really was, in what it consisted.  Two of us responded with some ideas.  You may find the brief discussion interesting, as I did. 

I would note that this is a real discussion on a public forum.  While I have edited the segments down a bit, I have not inserted new material or changed any of the thoughts expressed.  I give only the first names of my two colleagues.  While this took place on a public forum, I did not ask them to repeat their comments here.

Neal:  American exceptionalism is demonstrated as American values and beliefs projected to the world with Washington, D.C. policies.  Therefore, American exceptionalism is arrogance. This is what I would believe if I allowed myself to accept conventional wisdom.  But I’m settled on understanding exceptionalism to mean that ordinary individuals doing extraordinary things, even beyond their own expectations.  And the reason why it is called “American exceptionalism” is because the country was founded on principles of liberty, freedom, and structures that were intended to defeat tyranny.  This was unique in the world and history at the time of the nation’s founding.

So I conclude that American exceptionalism is something that is not collective and is something that cannot be demonstrated by any policy that comes out of Washington, D.C.  American exceptionalism is something that can only be demonstrated by an individual.

I have trouble believing American exceptionalism was the deliberate intention of the Founders, because I see slavery in the Constitution.  How is it possible to reconcile the concept of American Exceptionalism with the tyranny of slavery?

Wayne Abernathy:  Neal, perceptive questions.  I think that when considering American Exceptionalism—and it is very real—you have to take modern Washington and collectivism out of the equation.  Our current collectivism, which is at the heart of much of what Washington does, is a throwback to what people came to America to escape. The basic idea of American Exceptionalism—which even preceded our independence and our constitution—was that this new land was a place where the worth of the individual, protected by the rule of law, prevailed.  While there were elements of those ideas in much of Europe, they struggled there against monarchy, class systems, and other means of imposing collective will on individuals.  The European ruling classes failed in their efforts to impose collectivist and class rules in North America, but they tried very hard.

I would dispute your point about slavery.  The U.S. Constitution did not create slavery.  It took the thirteen states and brought them as they were into a new foundational rule of law based upon individual liberty.  While slave states entered into that constitutional system and brought their slavery with them, they entered into a system that would not long tolerate slavery.  Before four score and seven years had elapsed most of the slave states recognized that if they stayed under the U.S. Constitution they would lose slavery through the operations of that Constitution, and they would lose it through peaceful means.  That is why they chose to try to leave the Union and defend slavery by force of arms.  The Constitution triumphed—or the people within that constitutional government did—and defeated both secession and the defense of slavery by force of arms.

All of those were elements of American exceptionalism. We risk American exceptionalism to the degree that we embrace the age old practices and policies of group rights, class structure, collectivism, and other policies that undermine individual liberty and the rule of law.

Honza:  As an immigrant, I always took American Exceptionalism to be what our first political generations meant it to be—the idea that we are not a collection of tribes or a particular trading depot that elbowed its way into nationhood so much as people united by a very specific set of ideas:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (including but not limited to property).

Contrast us to Saudi Arabia or any nation with an established faith, or even, arguably national countries like India or Germany, where group membership matters more than who one is.  That’s our genius, it’s why we perform, decade in and decade out, remarkably well compared to other places and why we’re always anxious, as we are now (thanks Wayne), that we’re becoming a nation where who one knows matters more than what one knows.

Neal:  Thank you guys for offering corrective perspectives on this wildly misunderstood idea of American Exceptionalism.  I first got interested when listening to Rush. I thought he was going to define it in a quick sentence, but there was a bunch of table setting.  But Rush gave us more establishment of context.  I was still not certain I had correctly grasped what he defined.  

A whole bunch of people use the phrase “American Exceptionalism” in a very wrong way, and I think it must require an individual effort to get yourself beyond the conventional wisdom meaning. We need somebody more eloquent than Obama to explain it to the American people.

Wayne Abernathy:  I don’t think that Obama believes in it.  He offers a lot of rhetoric—and policies—rooted in the idea that America is just like everywhere else, or where it isn’t it should be.  The United States was founded on the belief and vision that this was a place that could and should be different, that could break the patterns of oppression that had prevailed throughout history and all over the Old World.  By and large, the Founders succeeded, though it is a work in progress and is constantly challenged at home and abroad.

I think that it is that difference, that respect for the individual and for the rule of law, that makes us the target of ideologies of slavery, like the Islamists and the socialist tyrannies.  I am not sure that Obama recognizes that.

Neal:  Comparison to Saudi Arabia brings to mind a question I toyed with:  would the mundane act of a woman driving a car without fear of punishment be considered an example of American Exceptionalism?

Honza:  Neal, I think Wayne is correct. The Canadian rock band Rush (at first I thought you were talking about them rather than the radio host) is less likely to blame others’ poverty and repression on America’s prosperity and freedom than Obama is.  Obama hasn’t really thought about the idea of American exceptionalism, isn’t interested in it and just knows he’s against it without understanding it.

Of the Constitution and the States

It must be the least employed part of the Constitution.  In fact, “never used” may be a better description.  I am not sure but that it may be the one part of the Constitution not only never used but never really tried.

I draw your attention to Article V, which offers procedures for amending the Constitution.  Article V has been successfully invoked 27 times--25 or 26 times if you reconcile the count for the fact that the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, the prohibition of intoxicating liquors.

So why do I refer to Article V if it has been used on more than two dozen occasions?  I have in mind an important but neglected part of Article V.  Article V provides two methods for amending the Constitution.  Only one method has been used.  We might call that the Washington Method, since it relies upon the Federal Government to propose amendments and send them to the States.  The other, unused method I would call the State Method, as it relies upon the State legislatures to initiate the amendment process.

Article V is short.  Here is the text in full:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (Emphasis added)

Constitutions are foundational documents and so should not be changed any more often than you would consider changing the foundation of your house.  Change the foundation and a lot of other things change, too, and if you are not careful you can weaken the whole structure.  But the Founders of the nation knew that they were not omniscient and that the need for adjustments or even corrections to the basic plan of the government would surely become obvious over time. 

For example, the original process for counting electoral votes for President and Vice President almost put Aaron Burr in the White House instead of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.  Jefferson was the candidate for President, Burr the running mate, and both received the same number of electoral votes, but the electoral college ballot under the Constitution did not distinguish between President and Vice President.  The two were tied, and Aaron Burr got the notion that maybe he should be President instead of Jefferson.  The House of Representatives had to sort it out.  Afterwards, this flaw in the Constitution was corrected by the Twelfth Amendment.

The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were made almost immediately and were demanded by several states as essential conditions for their ratification of the Constitution itself.  We could very appropriately consider those ten amendments as part of the original Constitution since it would not likely have been ratified without their promised addition.  In that view, the Constitution has subsequently been amended little more than a dozen times in over two centuries.

It is also worth noting that Congress has proposed amendments that the States have subsequently and appropriately turned down.  One such proposed amendment that never got past the States was approved by Congress in 1861, denying Congress the power to interfere with slavery.  The Constitution does not, however, limit the power of the States to only considering amendments that come out of Washington.  It provides to the States the power to initiate amendments of their own.

Mark Levin, in his recent book, The Liberty Amendments, argues that it is important for the States to exercise that authority.  He offers some suggestions for amendments that the States might consider, designed to restore the balance between Washington and the States that the Founders envisioned when creating our federal system.

It is a sign of how distorted things have become that using the word “federal” today almost always leads one to think of the government inWashington.  Yet our federal system was designed specifically to preserve State authority and limit the power of the national government.  Levin argues that those limits have been dangerously eroded, especially over the last century. 

Consider the many aspects of our daily lives that are determined one way or another by Washington laws and regulations rather than by the States whose representatives are closer to the people whom they govern.  The list would include the fixtures in our bathrooms, the design of our cars, the food offered to children in school lunch rooms, the subjects that they are taught, the products and services offered by banks, and now the healthcare that we can receive.

A major consequence of the problem is that the power appetite of Washington has taken on more than it can handle and is seriously threatening the health of the nation.  Regardless of which parties are in power or whether power is divided, Washington is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.  But the professional politicians in Washington will not let go of the power that they have taken from the States, even as they sink under the weight. 

 

What has tied Washington up in knots this fall?  It is conflict over Obamacare.  Would that even be a problem if healthcare were left to the States to regulate?  Congress is having trouble passing a farm bill because of apparently unbridgeable differences over food stamps.  Would Washington be stuck in the mud—and at the same time affecting all the rest of the nation—if farm and nutrition policies remained in State hands?  At the same time, many States are facing major budget problems coming to grips with paying for programs forced on them by the national government.

The State Method for amending the Constitution was put into the Constitution specifically for the time when the national government was the problem and would be incapable of solving its own problems.  Surely that time has come.  Washington has gotten tied up in a Gordian knot of its own devising.  The wise Founders of the nation apparently knew that things could come to this.  It is time for the States to exercise their constitutional power to cut the knot.