Democracy!

It strikes me that we (America) are getting farther from our founding principles all the time.  The first sentence of The Declaration of Independence mentions "one people" assuming "the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ... "

The first line of The Constitution talks about "We the People" establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare, doing these things for ourselves.  Coming together (forming a more perfect union) and doing these things for ourselves.  Government of the people, BY the people.  And, maybe most importantly, FOR the people.  We do these things for our own, common good.

Does anybody see much of that anymore?  I suggest that we see government of the state, by the people who get elected in elections which are entirely too corrupted by money, for the people who put up almost all of that money. 

In the Federalist number ten (I believe), Madison worried about interest groups, and what might happen if our government should come to be controlled by them.  He semi-dismissed the issue, apparently believing that no group could ever take enough power to "assume control."  He felt that no single issue could ever unite a large enough group and that multiple issue coalitions would never be able to cohere for long.  I believe he missed one.

Wealth.  Wealth does two things that change the equation.  First, it multiplies the size of the group, especially now that money has been ruled to be constitutionally protected "speech."  So a small "interest group" becomes large.  Second, it binds better than other commonalities.  Its interests never vary; like a predator seeking prey, always on target.  Wealth's interest is, essentially, multiplying.  Like a living organism, it seeks to survive and pass on. 

I suggest that our government has become an instrument of the wealthy.  Every government policy is crafted with vested interests in mind, every government action is directed toward some private end.  And we allow it. 

Why?  Two reasons.  A lot of people aren't paying attention (democracy requires participation, to work) and many of the participators believe that the best way to advance the common good is to let wealth seek to multiply.  I can understand this philosophy, but I do not share it.  Its appeal is that efficiencies are created when rational people seek economic solutions to problems.  Seeking the highest payout is a very rational approach.  Its flaw is that it scores the wrong outcome. 

And this is what I meant, above, that we are getting farther from our founding principles.  We need to start looking, again, at the middle and not one of the poles.  If we want to assess how a particular set of economic polices are working over 10 years or 30 years, or even two years, we should look at the median American family and not the (Sam) Waltons.  We can still have wealth-seeking, we'll still have rational people seeking economic solutions to problems, they'll just be

OK, I going to come back to this, it's starting to drift and I'm suddenly tired.  ;  )

Ron

We buried my friend Ron today.  Well, actually he was cremated earlier in the week and we had a service for him today.

We found out in April, I guess, that he had cancer.  It started in his lungs and by the time he was diagnosed it had spread to his bones, lymph nodes and brain.  They were using the term "stage four" which didn't sound promising for a recovery and I guess his surviving only about 15 weeks from then isn't too surprising, despite a round of radiation and chemo.

Ron would have been 49 this September 2nd and while 49 is much too young to be done he did live a very full life; one of those guys who really does, I'm sorry, did, squeeze every last drop out of every day.  If he had a chance to do anything over he may have decided that not smoking would be a good idea, but I wouldn't bet on it.  I think he realized that he had contributed to his cancer and accepted it as "part of the deal."  He seemed to be very much at peace when I talked to him last.

I'm going to miss him.    

Finished!

I'm sending this in, directly.  Posting it here first.  ;  )

Remember American Exceptionalism?  What happened?  America was going to be different, right?  Exceptional.  The first to try a radical experiment in self-government.  Who better to govern a people than the people themselves? 

The old way was the few rule and the many serve.  The few owned the land, the many worked it.  The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved.   The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury.  The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Enlightenment thought said that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness.  Conservative reaction was to protect the old ways.  But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these in the new world and said, let’s do this!  And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” 

The Preamble claims that we form our government to “establish Justice … (and to) promote the general Welfare.”  The idea that people could ever be motivated solely by interest in the common good is beyond naïve.  But equally far-fetched is the notion that we can have a true society by pursuing narrow self-interest. 

Consider tax policy.  It’s in everyone’s individual interest to pay as little as possible.  But the over-all good suffers.  As taxes on upper incomes drop, disparity rises.  Is this “good” for the community?  How?  As more wealth has accrued to the few the “misery index” has risen.  As the middle class has shrunk the prison population has more than doubled.  Coincidence?   

We need the wealth of the nation to be equitably distributed.  Not that anybody should be “given” anything but rather, let us recognize that wealth isn’t solely a product of entrepreneurship or “ownership.”  Many factors contribute including labor and materials.  Perhaps Earth’s resources can be most efficiently brought to market by the private sector but it does not follow that all wealth thereby created must go to the few.  The “owners” of production deciding who gets how much is not so much “fair” as it is leverage.   In Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus argues that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.  Socrates points out that the many are stronger than the few, so the many can leverage the few in the common interest.  In a democracy the good of the many is about as close as we can likely ever come to advancing the common good.  We don’t want wage mandates so the only lever we have is tax policy.  We should return to the higher marginal rates of the ‘50s and ‘60s.  Higher marginal rates accomplish two good things: more revenue (balance those budgets), and more reinvestment in the American economy as the wealthy avoid taxes by deferring income.

I don’t expect multi-national corporations to respond to an appeal to patriotism and “do what’s right for America.”  But can’t we expect our policy makers to respond to such an appeal?  Or is patriotism only something the have-nots are supposed to show during wartime? 

Do we want to be exceptional or don’t we?                     

Almost Finished

All right, 730 words must be condensed to500 and I'm there.

What ever happened to American Exceptionalism?  Remember that?  America was going to be different, exceptional.  The first to try a radical experiment in self-government.  Who, the question was, is better fit to govern a people than those people themselves?  No one!  Government of the people, by the people, for the people!

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism and the “rights of man,” was for the few to rule and the many to serve.  The few owned all the land, the many worked it.  The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved.   The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury.  The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness.  And a conservative reaction to try to protect the old ways. 

But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these ideas in the new world and said, we can do this!  And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” 

Now we are engaged in a great debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.  At issue is whether we can survive as an exceptional nation, a nation with equality as an ideal.  The Preamble to the Constitution states that we form this government to “establish Justice … (and to) promote the general Welfare.”  Worthy, noble goals.  How best to achieve them?  By insisting that government get out of the way of profit-seekers? 

No one doubts that humans are motivated by self-interest.  The idea that people could ever be motivated solely by an interest in the common good is beyond naïve.  But just as far-fetched is the notion that we can achieve the society that we desire by everyone always pursuing his own, narrow self-interest. 

Consider tax policy.  For thirty years we’ve tried to tax-cut our way to prosperity.  Has it worked?  I guess it depends on how we measure.  Do we look at the richest one per cent and see how they’re doing?  Or do we look at the median America household and see where it stands? 

As taxes on upper income levels have dropped, income disparity has risen.  Is this “good” for the community?  How?  As more and more wealth has accrued to the few the “misery index” has risen.  As the middle class has shrunk the prison population has more than doubled.  Coincidence?   

We need the wealth of the nation to be more equitably distributed.  This does not mean that anybody should be “given” anything but rather that there needs to be recognition that wealth isn’t solely a product of entrepreneurship or of “ownership.”  Many factors contribute to the creation of wealth, including labor and raw materials.  “America” decided long ago that the earth’s resources could most efficiently be brought to market by the private sector but it most certainly does not follow that all the wealth that is thereby created must go to the few.  The “owners” of production deciding who gets how much of the profit is not so much “fair” as it is an example of leverage.   Plato’s Thrasymachus argues, in The Republic, that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger.  In refutation, Socrates points out that by that definition the many are always stronger than the few.  So the many can leverage the few in the interest of the many.  In a democracy the good of the many is about as close as we can likely ever come to the advance of the common good.  If we don’t want to mandate wages (we don’t) the only lever we have is tax policy.  Which is why we should return to the higher marginal tax rates of the ‘50s and ‘60s.  Higher marginal tax rates accomplish two good things: more revenue, which will go a long way toward balancing budgets, and more reinvestment in the American economy as the wealthy attempt to avoid some of the taxes by deferring some income.

I don’t expect multi-national corporations to respond to an appeal to patriotism and “do what’s right for America.”  But can’t I expect our policy makers to respond to such an appeal?  Or is patriotism only something the have-nots are supposed to show during times of war?  Are we going to be exceptional or aren't we?                     

It's Starting to Jumble

I'm going to have to pull this together into one coherent thread, somehow.  In no more than 500 words.  It stands right now at 486.  Wish me luck.  ;  )

What ever happened to American Exceptionalism?  Remember that?  America was going to be different, exceptional.  The first to try a radical experiment in self-government.  Who, the question was, is better fit to govern a people than those people themselves?  No one!  Government of the people, by the people, for the people!

What happened?  Is it possible that the right turn we took thirty years ago was really a wrong turn?  That despite the lies of the Vietnam War and the deceptions of Watergate, the way to Exceptionalism isn’t to kill government but to reform it?     

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism and the rights of man, was for the few to rule and the many to serve.  The few owned all the land, the many worked it.  The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved.   The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury.  The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness.  And a conservative movement to try to protect the old ways. 

But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these ideas in the new world and said, we can do this!  And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” 

Now we are engaged in a great debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.  At issue is whether we can survive as an exceptional nation, a nation with equality as an ideal.  The Preamble to the Constitution states that we form this government to “establish Justice … (and to) promote the general Welfare.”  Worthy, noble goals.  How best to achieve them?  By insisting that government get out of the way of profit-seekers? 

No one doubts that humans are motivated by self-interest.  The idea that people could ever be motivated solely by an interest in the common good is beyond naïve.  But just as far-fetched is the notion that we can achieve the society that we desire by everyone always pursuing his own, narrow self-interest. 

Consider tax policy.  For thirty years we’ve tried to tax-cut our way to prosperity.  Has it worked?  I guess it depends on how we measure.  Do we look at the richest one per cent and see how they’re doing?  Or do we look at the median America household and see where it stands? 

As taxes on upper income levels have dropped, income disparity has risen.  Is this “good” for the community?  How?  As more and more wealth has accrued to the few the “misery index” has risen.  As the middle class has shrunk the prison population has more than doubled.  Coincidence?   

For thirty years our economy has been boom and bust with dot com bubbles, Savings and Loan scandals and bank bailouts.                  

Unblocking

I've had some sort of writers' block ever since school ended.  Suddenly I can't write without a deadline?  Fuck!  Anyway, I've been talking up a guest column for the State Journal that I'm fixin' to write, to self-impose a deadline, I guess.  I have it about half way there, length-wise, plus I will be revising it before submission, no doubt.  Here's what I have so far (the second paragraph is probably coming out):

What ever happened to American Exceptionalism?  Remember that?  America was going to be different, exceptional.  The first to try a radical experiment in self-government.  Who, the question was, is better fit to govern a people than those people themselves?  No one!  Government of the people, by the people, for the people!

What happened?  Is it possible that the right turn we took thirty years ago was really a wrong turn?  That despite the lies of the Vietnam War and the deceptions of Watergate, the way to Exceptionalism isn’t to kill government but to reform it?     

The old way of government, before the rise of Liberalism (the real kind, not the Rush Limbaugh kind), was for the few to rule and the many to serve.  The few owned all the land, the many worked it.  The few had plenty, the many sometimes starved.   The many paid taxes so the few could live in luxury.  The many fought wars so the few might increase their wealth.

Then came The Enlightenment and the idea that all are equal, with equal rights to life, liberty and happiness.  And a conservative movement to try to protect the old ways. 

But ideas don’t die easily and Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson articulated these ideas in the new world and said, we can do this!  And a new nation was born, “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” 

Now we are engaged in a great debate, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.  At issue is whether we can survive as an exceptional nation while having the pursuit of individual self-interest as our raison d’etre.

Comments?