I just scanned the 1017 page health care bill passed by the House last week. I’ve combed through many emails, YouTube video, newspaper articles, and even watched a pro-nationalized health care segment on CBS. It does not take long to become confused especially as you hear our leaders calling anyone speaking out Astroturf, extremist paid by lobbyist and that the White House has set up a website for tattling on dissenters. This week, people who normally stay out of the political fray are going to town hall meetings (where they are being held) and rallies. Many are calling and imploring representatives to hold meetings to talk about and explain the legislation and what it means for Americans.
The details of the bill are not important. How it’s explained or not explained is not important. How the Canadian or the French systems work is also irrelevant. It’s about our unique way of life here in America as a constitutional republic. Maybe we are remembering the experiment in independence and free-enterprise economics that enabled this country to become the most prosperous in modern history. What Americans of all political persuasion are protesting this week is distaste for being made wards of the state, the notion that something is being taken from one and being re-distributed by the government, that a faceless bureaucracy will decide how and when we get health care. We all know that nothing is free. The health care legislation is just another blow to our freedoms along with Wall Street bailouts, auto industry take over, cap and trade, creation of a “czardom” by the administration filled with true extremists, and the long list of other unwise moves like 8 billion for Hammas refugees (whole different topic).
We are protesting against the push toward a “ruler’s law” which is marked by people not being treated NOT as equals but in classes or special interests; government NOT by fixed rule of law, and the setting up of more bureaucracy, regulation, manipulation and taxation. “Under ruler’s law, freedom is never viewed as the solution,” says Cleon Skousen in the 5000 Year Leap. America is set up under people’s law also called common law based on natural law. What is natural law? It includes the concepts of unalienable rights, habeas corpus, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, right to contract, principle of no taxation without representation. Natural law calls for dispersed power among the people and never concentrated in a few; primary responsibility for resolving problems first with individual, then family, then community, state and finally nation.
British law maker William Blackstone wrote years before the Constitution was crafted that the natural rights of man, those to be protected and served by government, could be summed up as the right to personal security, right to personal liberty, and right to private property. Who made these laws up? God - every single one of these concepts comes right out of the Bible. Not liking that does not change it. We can throw out these principles that formed the Constitution for another set of ideas but it does not change the fact that God’s law was woven firmly into the Constitution. He made all this stuff up.
Another option might be democracy which the members of the Constitutional Convention went to great lengths to reject in favor of a republic. In a democracy the full participation of all the people in the legislative decision making is required. “In a democracy the majority shall determine the law and regulation whether based on deliberation, passion, prejudice or impulse without restraint or regard to consequences” (U.S. Army Training Manual, 1928). James Madison wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths….” He went on to say that in a republic the people assemble and administer government by their representatives and agents. So, in a republic the government derives it powers from the great body of people through representatives elected. Referring to America as a democracy in modern times is nothing like Thomas Jefferson’s reference to a democratic republic.
American’s didn’t refer to this country as a democracy until the 1920s after the term became popularized by organizers of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. They claimed their mission was to “throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.” Socialism is hostile toward natural rights like property and liberty as are most other social and economic systems. Even in the free-wheeling European countries with free health care and capped emissions of carbon, the people pay dearly with tax rates exceeding fifty percent. The governments kindly take it from them and pay for their free, rationed health care and energy. It’s a pay me now or pay me later no matter how you slice it. It is no mistake that of all the rights and freedoms, the founders focused a great deal of thought and debate on the preservation of the right to property which includes the money you earn through your mental and physical capacity and whether you spend it at the doctor or on a stiff drink. If we don’t have a right to property whether it be our house or our body, how can we take personal responsibility for any of our actions?
Our natural rights are being violated. Even though many years have passed since we were taught in our public schools of how the Constitution and republic were designed and the need to protect our freedoms, we still have this knowledge in our DNA. We are waking up to the fact that our natural rights as secured by the blood of many ancestors and written within the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are being trampled. The founding documents are being crushed like the clunkers you and me are buying. It didn’t start with this administration. It started in earnest first with Hoover who imposed ridiculous control over our economic system paving the way for Franklin D. Roosevelt and the creation of massive entitlement programs, distancing us from the economic principles that make for prosperity. This administration is simply stealing home base now. They are closing the deal for those that hate the very idea of our freedom and the prosperity it has engendered. Those leading this charge are not unlike those in 1787 who complained that the Constitution gave too little power to the federal government and even argued to set up an American monarchy with George Washington as the first king. Washington rejected this notion out of hand. We must do the same today even though it will cost us dearly.
*These ideas are excerpted from the 5000 Year Leap by Cleon Skousen. Read this book!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Public Office an Honor
The filing deadline for municipal elections is July 17. Has there been a time in recent history where leadership and service to community is more needed? Given the growing frustration with bloated, out of control government across all party lines, visionary leaders committed to the public good are needed.
Cleon Skousen, author of The 5000 Year Leap published in 1981, called strong local self-government a keystone to preserving human freedom. He said that centralization of political power always destroys liberty because it removes the decision-making function from people at a local level and transfers it to the officers of the central government. That in turn gradually benumbs the spirit of voluntarism and the will to solve problems locally. How can we preserve the self-government granted by the Constitution if we don’t encourage and raise-up good local leaders?
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 there was much debate over whether the colonists were capable of self-governance. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters,” wrote Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was particularly concerned with the elements needed to ensure the system of government being drafted would last. He argued vehemently that public office ought to be an honor rather than a position of profit. He said, “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambitions and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have the most violent effects.”
Franklin was so adamant that pay for public office be kept moderate that he went on to say with much force: “What kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of character? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers….”
Jefferson, more subdued, wrote extensively about a “natural aristocracy” in America. No better example did he have than George Washington who was called out of retirement three times to serve the country and on every occasion declined payment for his service either as President or Commander-in- Chief of the armed services during the Revolutionary War. What was a “natural aristocracy?” It was people of virtue, talent, and patriotism without which the nation could not survive, according to Jefferson. His definition was in contrast and disdain for the elite ruling class of Europe who obtained office because of wealth, station in life, or some other special influence. Jefferson believed the nation should use education and every possible means to encourage citizens who exhibited a special talent for public service. In 1779 he said, “For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by [public] education worthy to receive and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens and they should be called to that charge without regard to birth or other accidental condition or circumstance.”
George Washington praised the American Constitution as the “palladium of human rights,” but that it would only last “so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.” In the eighteenth century minds of the men who founded this government, “public virtue was considered a very special quality of human maturity in character and service closely akin to the Golden Rule,” according to Skousen. Gordon Wood, historian, writes: “In a Republic each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole.” This statement infers that all should serve according to their unique gifts and talents. Some will be public servants while others farmers, manufacturers, teachers, home makers, and so on. Yet the framers were clear that only people with proven virtue and demonstrated wisdom should serve as public officials and do so as an honor. Samuel Adams said that each American, “in so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”
We need public servants who possess some seed of the maturity and virtue so openly discussed and called for by those who pledged treasure and honor to each other, and in many cases went without pay in order to form a government; a country unlike any before or after. It is often a tedious, thankless task but without a continuous flow of men and women of the “natural aristocracy” termed by Jefferson, we have no hope of emerging from the withering conditions that plague our economy and society.
We need those among us who possess magnanimity to step forward and serve. What is magnanimity? It is, according to Wikipedia, “a greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects. Sounds like an American. For those serving with magnanimity, thank you. For those waiting in the wings, please step forward.
Cleon Skousen, author of The 5000 Year Leap published in 1981, called strong local self-government a keystone to preserving human freedom. He said that centralization of political power always destroys liberty because it removes the decision-making function from people at a local level and transfers it to the officers of the central government. That in turn gradually benumbs the spirit of voluntarism and the will to solve problems locally. How can we preserve the self-government granted by the Constitution if we don’t encourage and raise-up good local leaders?
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787 there was much debate over whether the colonists were capable of self-governance. “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters,” wrote Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was particularly concerned with the elements needed to ensure the system of government being drafted would last. He argued vehemently that public office ought to be an honor rather than a position of profit. He said, “Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambitions and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have the most violent effects.”
Franklin was so adamant that pay for public office be kept moderate that he went on to say with much force: “What kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of character? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers….”
Jefferson, more subdued, wrote extensively about a “natural aristocracy” in America. No better example did he have than George Washington who was called out of retirement three times to serve the country and on every occasion declined payment for his service either as President or Commander-in- Chief of the armed services during the Revolutionary War. What was a “natural aristocracy?” It was people of virtue, talent, and patriotism without which the nation could not survive, according to Jefferson. His definition was in contrast and disdain for the elite ruling class of Europe who obtained office because of wealth, station in life, or some other special influence. Jefferson believed the nation should use education and every possible means to encourage citizens who exhibited a special talent for public service. In 1779 he said, “For promoting the public happiness, those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by [public] education worthy to receive and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens and they should be called to that charge without regard to birth or other accidental condition or circumstance.”
George Washington praised the American Constitution as the “palladium of human rights,” but that it would only last “so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.” In the eighteenth century minds of the men who founded this government, “public virtue was considered a very special quality of human maturity in character and service closely akin to the Golden Rule,” according to Skousen. Gordon Wood, historian, writes: “In a Republic each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole.” This statement infers that all should serve according to their unique gifts and talents. Some will be public servants while others farmers, manufacturers, teachers, home makers, and so on. Yet the framers were clear that only people with proven virtue and demonstrated wisdom should serve as public officials and do so as an honor. Samuel Adams said that each American, “in so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”
We need public servants who possess some seed of the maturity and virtue so openly discussed and called for by those who pledged treasure and honor to each other, and in many cases went without pay in order to form a government; a country unlike any before or after. It is often a tedious, thankless task but without a continuous flow of men and women of the “natural aristocracy” termed by Jefferson, we have no hope of emerging from the withering conditions that plague our economy and society.
We need those among us who possess magnanimity to step forward and serve. What is magnanimity? It is, according to Wikipedia, “a greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects. Sounds like an American. For those serving with magnanimity, thank you. For those waiting in the wings, please step forward.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Freedom: Who Cares?
In recent months, those that chaff against the very principles of American society have behaved like Walmart shoppers on black Friday. The number of incidents aimed at sanitizing America of her historical laws and social mores are alarming. The system of government created by our founders was based on an understanding of human nature and natural laws: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Men such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison knew that only a people free to enjoy the fruits of their labor with protection from a just government could thrive. They knew that the Republic which rested as close to the edge of no government (anarchy) would always be vulnerable, yet they rested in the knowledge that the architecture for “a more perfect union” based on the ideas, principles and lessons taken primarily from the Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians was sound. Those who gathered in 1776 to sign the Declaration of Independence and later attended the Continental Convention to create the Constitution were well versed in history, science, and reason. They were “enlightened” yet clearly understood the role of a Creator and natural law.
Mark Levin, author of Liberty and Tyranny and Constitutional lawyer, explains that those who want to “progress past” our foundations argue that man can know moral order and unalienable rights from reasoning. With this philosophy, people could arbitrarily decide right and wrong; just and unjust. “Those in power could decide that rights do not belong to the individual but of amorphous groups: the poor, the illegal immigrant, the minority, the Muslim, etc. Leaders could decide who is deserving of rights and who is not. Examples of this approach can be found around the world today and throughout history e.g. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea.”
President Barak Obama is unabashedly at the helm of an agenda to rewrite American history and redefine our society on the whole. He eloquently confuses the well meaning American with words like equality, hope, and fairness. Those who consider themselves socially liberal and not “religious” might not worry over the statement below repeated many times now in Europe and at home:
"I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
-Barak Obama
Why does it matter that our President would make such proclamations?
It matters because we are not bound by values. A band of thieves can be bound by values. We are bound by natural law; a belief in an unalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These are not constructs of reason. They are not ideals or values. They are principles issuing from a single creator – God. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu based nations are not bound by unalienable rights. Their beliefs and values about governance are quite contrary to ours. We welcome them as legal immigrants who want to contribute to our society and abide by our laws, customs, and culture.
America was created and has prospered because our governing documents and the intent of our founders were based on “true North” principles. Our system of laws is based in large part on the old testament of the Bible, the Torah to Jews. Yet, for the last forty years those that seek to redefine America into something that more closely resembles an oligarchy based on socialist ideals have chipped away right under our noses. Today, we see those disciples openly working with sledge hammers. The examples are many ranging from Lyndon B. Johnson’s redefining of the black family under the “Great Society” to Clinton’s push for the equivalent of a communist China “Marshall Plan.” It was 1962 when the Supreme Court in Engel vs. Vitale ruled prayer in schools unconstitutional leading to the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools, court rooms or any other public building. Since then a host of cases have set about misinterpreting the First Amendment to the Constitution based on a phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson not within the amendment but in a letter taken out of context: “separation of church and state.” The amendment actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The founders were leery of monarchies and the various forms of tyranny that oppressed people and forced them into worship dictated by the state. What they wanted to avoid was a government created and sanctioned religion. They were not worried about God and his principles influencing government and the people. In fact they urged just that. In his famous farewell address, George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness… The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
What part of don’t kill, don’t steal, be respectful to your parents, etc. do we not like in our society? Why would our leaders seek to take away our freedom; the very goose that has laid the golden eggs? Every act thus far by the Obama Administration and Democratic led Congress has at its root one or all of a three pronged strategy: increase dependence on government, remove freedom, breakdown the social fabric: government run health care, cap and trade, fairness doctrine, gay marriage (not civil unions by marriage redefined), more restrictive gun ownership laws, micromanage of banks and auto industry, 9 trillion and counting in debt, printing one trillion US dollars without backing, taking census away from Commerce, and the list goes on. Now is the time to begin reading history; ask questions; and get involved. The issues at hand defy party, beliefs, or values. At stake is our blessed freedom. Not many of us alive today know the hell of tyranny. Ask a veteran; ask an immigrant; ask a Holocaust survivor.
Men such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison knew that only a people free to enjoy the fruits of their labor with protection from a just government could thrive. They knew that the Republic which rested as close to the edge of no government (anarchy) would always be vulnerable, yet they rested in the knowledge that the architecture for “a more perfect union” based on the ideas, principles and lessons taken primarily from the Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians was sound. Those who gathered in 1776 to sign the Declaration of Independence and later attended the Continental Convention to create the Constitution were well versed in history, science, and reason. They were “enlightened” yet clearly understood the role of a Creator and natural law.
Mark Levin, author of Liberty and Tyranny and Constitutional lawyer, explains that those who want to “progress past” our foundations argue that man can know moral order and unalienable rights from reasoning. With this philosophy, people could arbitrarily decide right and wrong; just and unjust. “Those in power could decide that rights do not belong to the individual but of amorphous groups: the poor, the illegal immigrant, the minority, the Muslim, etc. Leaders could decide who is deserving of rights and who is not. Examples of this approach can be found around the world today and throughout history e.g. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea.”
President Barak Obama is unabashedly at the helm of an agenda to rewrite American history and redefine our society on the whole. He eloquently confuses the well meaning American with words like equality, hope, and fairness. Those who consider themselves socially liberal and not “religious” might not worry over the statement below repeated many times now in Europe and at home:
"I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
-Barak Obama
Why does it matter that our President would make such proclamations?
It matters because we are not bound by values. A band of thieves can be bound by values. We are bound by natural law; a belief in an unalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These are not constructs of reason. They are not ideals or values. They are principles issuing from a single creator – God. Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu based nations are not bound by unalienable rights. Their beliefs and values about governance are quite contrary to ours. We welcome them as legal immigrants who want to contribute to our society and abide by our laws, customs, and culture.
America was created and has prospered because our governing documents and the intent of our founders were based on “true North” principles. Our system of laws is based in large part on the old testament of the Bible, the Torah to Jews. Yet, for the last forty years those that seek to redefine America into something that more closely resembles an oligarchy based on socialist ideals have chipped away right under our noses. Today, we see those disciples openly working with sledge hammers. The examples are many ranging from Lyndon B. Johnson’s redefining of the black family under the “Great Society” to Clinton’s push for the equivalent of a communist China “Marshall Plan.” It was 1962 when the Supreme Court in Engel vs. Vitale ruled prayer in schools unconstitutional leading to the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools, court rooms or any other public building. Since then a host of cases have set about misinterpreting the First Amendment to the Constitution based on a phrase penned by Thomas Jefferson not within the amendment but in a letter taken out of context: “separation of church and state.” The amendment actually reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The founders were leery of monarchies and the various forms of tyranny that oppressed people and forced them into worship dictated by the state. What they wanted to avoid was a government created and sanctioned religion. They were not worried about God and his principles influencing government and the people. In fact they urged just that. In his famous farewell address, George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness… The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, “Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?”
What part of don’t kill, don’t steal, be respectful to your parents, etc. do we not like in our society? Why would our leaders seek to take away our freedom; the very goose that has laid the golden eggs? Every act thus far by the Obama Administration and Democratic led Congress has at its root one or all of a three pronged strategy: increase dependence on government, remove freedom, breakdown the social fabric: government run health care, cap and trade, fairness doctrine, gay marriage (not civil unions by marriage redefined), more restrictive gun ownership laws, micromanage of banks and auto industry, 9 trillion and counting in debt, printing one trillion US dollars without backing, taking census away from Commerce, and the list goes on. Now is the time to begin reading history; ask questions; and get involved. The issues at hand defy party, beliefs, or values. At stake is our blessed freedom. Not many of us alive today know the hell of tyranny. Ask a veteran; ask an immigrant; ask a Holocaust survivor.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Radical Cures
I am reading a lot of American history these days. I hope you are too. I find it comforting. Instead of posting my observations here over the last few months I have been submitting them as a column to the local newspaper conglomerate after having been promised a monthly column in December. They have run one so far. I guess my writing career is still embryonic. Thanks for reading and thinking.
Radical Cures
In 1787 prior to the Constitutional Convention, George Washington wrote of a need for “radical cures” regarding our fledgling nation. A few years earlier he had written that unless Americans believed that they constituted one people with one sense of purpose and one overriding goal they would never achieve true independence. Yet over ten years after the remarkable defeat of the British by a “rag tag band of rebels,” Americans remained mistrustful of centralized, national political authority. After all, whites, blacks, American Indians and all shades in between had sacrificed blood and treasure to gain freedom from an oppressive, over taxing government far removed from them. Some were leery of creating another such government.
When the 55 delegates converged on Philadelphia, PA that May and sat sequestered, sweltering in the state house for four months without recess, none took lightly their charge. It was without doubt the most revolutionary undertaking in political planning the world over. Through “a finger of that almighty hand” according to James Madison and “little short of a miracle” said Washington they seemed to simultaneously understand the power a national government would need and the seriousness with which that power must also be balanced. Historian James M. Burns noted that they knew the new federal legislature would be the engine of law and policy but were unwilling, as James Madison wrote to allow it to “absorb all power into its vortex.”
So, the American Constitution produced by consensus set up a system of government, a constitutional republic where branches of government, interest groups and citizens would collide, and it worked. It has worked for 222 years because it hinges on an understanding of free will and human nature. They knew that coercion does not breed loyalty; only men and women free to choose their own paths and suffer or enjoy the consequences thrive.
Americans are being told that once again “radical cures” are in order. Private business as the provider of goods and services within a free market system may no longer work. Our government is forced to bail out large industry; become in effect an omnipotent board of directors. Health care must be nationalized and taken out of the failed hands of private and charitable organizations. Bankers can no longer be trusted to protect and nurture our once coveted dollar. According to many leaders in our government, the rich have gotten too rich and the poor too poor. There has been what appears to be a loud cry for leveling, sharing the wealth.
Comparing today’s government actions with more recent history, the Obama administration in many ways appears to be operating out of Harry Truman’s playbook when the Marshall Plan was put forward. That administration put forward the unheard of sum - $17 billion. They sold the plan appealing to American altruism and American self-interest and none too little the reputation of General George Marshall. Europe was starving to death and the Soviets were rapidly filling the vacuums left by a defeated Germany. At that time, American’s disdained communism and its socialist underpinnings with a passion. How much more appealing is today’s cry that our economy is failing; banks, insurance companies, auto industry and more are “too big to fail.” It’s a risky business dealing in radical cures and for over 200 years Americans have been willing to let the federal government conceive of and administer those cures usually based on confidence in the sitting President. The trick is to intuit the tipping point and not go beyond it because despite being latent for many, many years there is still a revolutionary spirit in America; a love for freedom that at times exceeds self interest.
1776 - David McCollough
Truman - David McCollogh
George Washington - James M. Burns
Radical Cures
In 1787 prior to the Constitutional Convention, George Washington wrote of a need for “radical cures” regarding our fledgling nation. A few years earlier he had written that unless Americans believed that they constituted one people with one sense of purpose and one overriding goal they would never achieve true independence. Yet over ten years after the remarkable defeat of the British by a “rag tag band of rebels,” Americans remained mistrustful of centralized, national political authority. After all, whites, blacks, American Indians and all shades in between had sacrificed blood and treasure to gain freedom from an oppressive, over taxing government far removed from them. Some were leery of creating another such government.
When the 55 delegates converged on Philadelphia, PA that May and sat sequestered, sweltering in the state house for four months without recess, none took lightly their charge. It was without doubt the most revolutionary undertaking in political planning the world over. Through “a finger of that almighty hand” according to James Madison and “little short of a miracle” said Washington they seemed to simultaneously understand the power a national government would need and the seriousness with which that power must also be balanced. Historian James M. Burns noted that they knew the new federal legislature would be the engine of law and policy but were unwilling, as James Madison wrote to allow it to “absorb all power into its vortex.”
So, the American Constitution produced by consensus set up a system of government, a constitutional republic where branches of government, interest groups and citizens would collide, and it worked. It has worked for 222 years because it hinges on an understanding of free will and human nature. They knew that coercion does not breed loyalty; only men and women free to choose their own paths and suffer or enjoy the consequences thrive.
Americans are being told that once again “radical cures” are in order. Private business as the provider of goods and services within a free market system may no longer work. Our government is forced to bail out large industry; become in effect an omnipotent board of directors. Health care must be nationalized and taken out of the failed hands of private and charitable organizations. Bankers can no longer be trusted to protect and nurture our once coveted dollar. According to many leaders in our government, the rich have gotten too rich and the poor too poor. There has been what appears to be a loud cry for leveling, sharing the wealth.
Comparing today’s government actions with more recent history, the Obama administration in many ways appears to be operating out of Harry Truman’s playbook when the Marshall Plan was put forward. That administration put forward the unheard of sum - $17 billion. They sold the plan appealing to American altruism and American self-interest and none too little the reputation of General George Marshall. Europe was starving to death and the Soviets were rapidly filling the vacuums left by a defeated Germany. At that time, American’s disdained communism and its socialist underpinnings with a passion. How much more appealing is today’s cry that our economy is failing; banks, insurance companies, auto industry and more are “too big to fail.” It’s a risky business dealing in radical cures and for over 200 years Americans have been willing to let the federal government conceive of and administer those cures usually based on confidence in the sitting President. The trick is to intuit the tipping point and not go beyond it because despite being latent for many, many years there is still a revolutionary spirit in America; a love for freedom that at times exceeds self interest.
1776 - David McCollough
Truman - David McCollogh
George Washington - James M. Burns
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Say It: Merry Christmas
I rang the Salvation Army bell last night. It became clear quickly that “in these times of woe and want” most are deaf to its call. Some might have even been among the rejected Salvation Army applicants this year. None entered the retail world with a jaunt in their step and much to my surprise many literally limped or walked gingerly as only those “stove up” do. For the first twenty minutes of my shift, I tried strategically moving the bucket closer to the door; variations on the ring from a steady “tink, tink” to a jazzy version of Here Comes Santa Clause and a pitiful rendition of Jingle Bells. Zero in the bucket. No one would give me more than a guilty sideways glance. I started to feel depressed too and let my ring falter to a half-hearted tinkle.
Then something said, “why not just use the bell to lift their spirits free of charge?” I started bellowing out, “Merry Christmas” to every single man, woman and child coming and going. I smiled and nodded like I meant it too. It took people aback. Some people even smiled and said it back or “thank you” or “you too.” Change started to rattle in the pot. Dollars even started coming in. A woman walked up with her wallet open digging around in its emptiness and said, “I have one dollar in here. I heard that if you give, it will come back to you.” It was tucked away behind an old photo of her daughter. A man wearing a World War II Veteran hat sat down on the bench near by. He comes out at night just to walk around. His house is all decorated just like his wife used to do it, until she died seven years ago. Christmas just ain’t what it used to be for him, but he’s helping out with the Christmas pageant at church all the same. By the last minutes of the shift, an elderly lady waiting for a ride joined me in singing “you better watch out you better not cry, you better not pout…..” off key and people actually laughed on their way into the store.
We’ve all been drilled for months that things are horrible; the economy is busted and if you just lost your job there’s no question about how the economy is doing. All the more reason to say it out loud: “Merry Christmas!” Your words translate to thoughts and impact you and others. It’s scientifically proven that thoughts have a physical structure and nature. According to South African brain and learning specialist and author of “Who Switched off My Brain”, for every thought, there is a corresponding electrochemical reaction taking place in the brain. The chemical released and what it does to the brain depends on the associated emotion e.g. sad, happy, angry, etc.
People have been saying “Merry Christmas” at least since 1565 and it’s been a common greeting card slogan since 1843; the same year Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol” came out. Just say it out loud – “Merry Christmas.” It feels good. It’s not meant to offend other religions or even the irreligious. It reflects a message of love, joy and well wishes. It’s a bridge between you and a stranger or those you love.
More on Caroline Leaf at www.drleaf.net
Then something said, “why not just use the bell to lift their spirits free of charge?” I started bellowing out, “Merry Christmas” to every single man, woman and child coming and going. I smiled and nodded like I meant it too. It took people aback. Some people even smiled and said it back or “thank you” or “you too.” Change started to rattle in the pot. Dollars even started coming in. A woman walked up with her wallet open digging around in its emptiness and said, “I have one dollar in here. I heard that if you give, it will come back to you.” It was tucked away behind an old photo of her daughter. A man wearing a World War II Veteran hat sat down on the bench near by. He comes out at night just to walk around. His house is all decorated just like his wife used to do it, until she died seven years ago. Christmas just ain’t what it used to be for him, but he’s helping out with the Christmas pageant at church all the same. By the last minutes of the shift, an elderly lady waiting for a ride joined me in singing “you better watch out you better not cry, you better not pout…..” off key and people actually laughed on their way into the store.
We’ve all been drilled for months that things are horrible; the economy is busted and if you just lost your job there’s no question about how the economy is doing. All the more reason to say it out loud: “Merry Christmas!” Your words translate to thoughts and impact you and others. It’s scientifically proven that thoughts have a physical structure and nature. According to South African brain and learning specialist and author of “Who Switched off My Brain”, for every thought, there is a corresponding electrochemical reaction taking place in the brain. The chemical released and what it does to the brain depends on the associated emotion e.g. sad, happy, angry, etc.
People have been saying “Merry Christmas” at least since 1565 and it’s been a common greeting card slogan since 1843; the same year Charles Dickens “A Christmas Carol” came out. Just say it out loud – “Merry Christmas.” It feels good. It’s not meant to offend other religions or even the irreligious. It reflects a message of love, joy and well wishes. It’s a bridge between you and a stranger or those you love.
More on Caroline Leaf at www.drleaf.net
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
From Election Day to Veteran's Day
Twenty-four hours before Election Day Sally the cat came home. Her protracted absence weighed heavy on my heart and tested my belief in things hoped for but not seen. Maggie, my eight year old, never once faltered in her belief that Sally would be OK; she would come home. I learn something new about faith and life and love everyday from her. Sally’s disappearance and the sadness I felt for her loss seemed to heighten and even embody the emotions I had about the up coming election. In those four weeks she was absent amid the constant barrage of election mania, my feelings ranged from fear and sadness, resignation and disbelief to hope and excitement. I enjoyed a lot of emails and discussion from people on both sides of the debate even though many of the comments confounded me. While I still don’t understand how someone over 40 with any connection to the private sector could cast a vote for a person with a long list of shady associations and whose ideology compared to the previous 230 some years of American history is radically socialist, the unquestioning support for him forced me to seek understanding in a deep way. I stopped trying to be understood and got viscerally engaged in making sense of what others saw, heard, and felt.
Sally’s silhouette in the window Monday morning caused us to cheer and me to cry as I rocked her in my arms and felt so thankful that God had answered yet another simple prayer. Hope had returned, and I spent half of the next day working at the polls and watching a record number turn out to peacefully cast their vote one way or the other. Some confided in me that this was in fact the first time they had ever voted in their lives. Apathy is not a word in the lexicon describing this election. Despite knowing in my gut the outcome that evening before anything official began to appear, I felt a peace. I sensed that this is how it is meant to be for better or worse. I sat down the burden that required me to make sense of the motives, the thought processes, and even the contempt in some cases. Of course that peace has not remained steady but random wise people and events have shown up to reassure me over and over.
Today, on Veteran’s Day, it was the words of a young soldier twice returned now from Iraq and the eerie sound of Taps played without accompaniment on a trumpet beside a small but honorable veteran’s memorial that did it for me. I felt OK again and being there affirmed my resolve. I have resolved, despite my reservations about this new administration with promises to do things ranging from the impossible to the absurd in my mind, to not be bitter or resentful. I will not stand by wishing for their failure as so many did over the last four years. I will not speak disparaging words about our new President at home or abroad. I will not coddle those that do. I will pray for him each day just like I have for the current President. I will respect the will of the popular and electoral vote. I will continue to volunteer in civic activities. I will fight for a recovery of the America I have enjoyed since birth in hope that my kid and others get the same privilege. I will no longer assume someone else is responsible for making my community or country a great place. For this awakening, I am grateful for what happened this election season.
Sally’s silhouette in the window Monday morning caused us to cheer and me to cry as I rocked her in my arms and felt so thankful that God had answered yet another simple prayer. Hope had returned, and I spent half of the next day working at the polls and watching a record number turn out to peacefully cast their vote one way or the other. Some confided in me that this was in fact the first time they had ever voted in their lives. Apathy is not a word in the lexicon describing this election. Despite knowing in my gut the outcome that evening before anything official began to appear, I felt a peace. I sensed that this is how it is meant to be for better or worse. I sat down the burden that required me to make sense of the motives, the thought processes, and even the contempt in some cases. Of course that peace has not remained steady but random wise people and events have shown up to reassure me over and over.
Today, on Veteran’s Day, it was the words of a young soldier twice returned now from Iraq and the eerie sound of Taps played without accompaniment on a trumpet beside a small but honorable veteran’s memorial that did it for me. I felt OK again and being there affirmed my resolve. I have resolved, despite my reservations about this new administration with promises to do things ranging from the impossible to the absurd in my mind, to not be bitter or resentful. I will not stand by wishing for their failure as so many did over the last four years. I will not speak disparaging words about our new President at home or abroad. I will not coddle those that do. I will pray for him each day just like I have for the current President. I will respect the will of the popular and electoral vote. I will continue to volunteer in civic activities. I will fight for a recovery of the America I have enjoyed since birth in hope that my kid and others get the same privilege. I will no longer assume someone else is responsible for making my community or country a great place. For this awakening, I am grateful for what happened this election season.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Hard on the Issues; Soft on the People
I have watched with awe and often disgust as negative ads, commentators, and spokespeople drag the political debate down to new lows. Obama is portrayed as knowing nothing and naïve. McCain is portrayed as an old man riddled with skin cancer. Sarah Palin was described in News Week as a “rapture-ready Christian” dangerously both confident and ignorant. Biden is made to look arrogant with out of context clips of him saying to a crowd, “People don’t like Obama because he is smart.” I keep thinking, and saying to whoever will listen, of a 20th century proverb often repeated by one of my favorite mentors: be hard on the issues and soft on the people.
I learned that principle working within the high conflict arena of natural resources in the West. My work that started out with Americorp (Clinton’s domestic version of the Peace Corp) and led to a position riding shot gun to Mike Preston and the Montezuma County Federal Lands Program spanned 15 years. In those years, we got an up close view of how federal policies impact land based industries and ultimately families and the entire custom and culture of communities across much of the West. Much of what we did involved trying to bring people together and find win/win ways forward. In our county we worked hard to keep a diversified economy and preserve a place for our loggers and ranchers as well as the hikers, mountain bikers and latte drinkers. It’s not easy to do when people’s definition of community and sense of security collide. It’s parallel to what’s happening to us on a national scale. People, including myself, are passionate about the outcome and about whom they think is fit to be president. Yet, we can’t forget that when it’s all said and done, no matter who wins, at the end of the day we are Americans and we must press on with whatever work we have been given to do and continue to show the world that our foundation is still strong.
For the past month or so I have been trying to drill down into some of the issues and understand them from a factual basis not from a “spin.” Questions like why have so many jobs been lost to other countries, why we are fighting in the middle east, and why do we import 70 percent of our oil needs have been on my mind. I have found it hard to place blame squarely on the policies or philosophy of one party or the other which is why I become very suspect when I hear accusatory statements from friends or commentators that sound a lot like sound bites we’ve all heard on TV over and over. When I read the 2008 preamble for both party platforms and what they have on their websites describing what they are about, it’s pretty hard to decipher on face value the differences. Both parties want to lay claim to “a special commitment to America’s promise” and both talk about good wages, retiring with dignity, civic commitment, change, helping hurting people……. It’s what you call rhetoric and it is meant to stimulate our mammalian brains so that we like the candidate speaking. We are very susceptible to rhetoric and repeating the sound bites or fears stoked by our party of choice. I have heard numerous people from both parties parroting statements crafted by brilliant people like Frank Luntz: “The government's present system of taxation is lining the pockets of the rich while the middle class disappears before our eyes.” “Obama is a Muslim and would capitulate to the Muslim world.” “We are in the middle east only to get their oil.” Give me a break. Here’s what I have figured out, caring about America, the poor, the economy, health care, and all the other issues is not a market cornered by Democrats or Republicans. Good, principled people are concerned about those things and bad, unprincipled people don’t care.
Let’s get subterranean on a couple issues. The manufacturing sector has been hammered with the loss of 3.7 million jobs over the past seven years leaving only one-tenth of all U.S. jobs in the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector accounts for only 12.5% of gross domestic product in the U.S., while it makes up 36% of the Chinese economy. China's share in global manufacturing is forecast to overtake that of the U.S. by 2016, boosted by rapid gains in market share of textiles, basic metals, computer equipment and mineral product manufacturing. (Global Insight) . The giant sucking noise of jobs leaving the U.S. as Ross Perot so aptly stated is not the result of any one policy you can point to. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported free trade agreements beginning with Israel in 1985, Canada in 1988 and then NAFTA in 1994. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton talked tough on the campaign trail about cracking down on Mexico’s poor labor and environmental standards as a way to level the playing field and bring back lost jobs. Each promised to in some way to renegotiate NAFTA using these hammers. Yet, China has captured more jobs than any of those in trade agreements and they are a communist society that we have so far been unable to persuade toward greater regulation when it comes to human rights, currency, etc. We owe them like $500 trillion dollars and our businesses continue moving to China and other parts of Asia. All forecasters say we should expect more of the same. I spoke to a former executive with a manufacturing company that spent some time with transferring facilities to China. I asked, “How does it work? Do you pay them to set things up, build your facility?” His answer was, “I don’t really know how they do it but the government takes care of it. What ever you want. They have the money available. They build it for you, give you long term leases on the land, and find the employees.” Sounds like a heck of a deal; hard to resist when American’s are standing in line at Wal Mart to buy more cheaply made goods because they can’t afford or can’t get quality goods. Is this condition the government’s fault? Should Bill Clinton have put the breaks on NAFTA before this trend got too out of hand? Is it George Bush’s secret “doctrine” that encouraged companies like GE to commoditize its appliance business and artificially force prices down by manufacturing in Asia?
I am ashamed to admit it, but I think we are collectively to blame for overextending credit, lapping up increasingly cheaply priced and made goods. We condoned a culture that allowed executives to earn $13 to $47 million a year while pursuing short term gain instead of innovation, investment and research in people and products. Instead they spent their time and money setting up facilities in China and financial services in urban centers. We went along because it felt good to see our portfolios grow while we played golf, regardless of our party affiliation. It’s been said a lot over the last couple years, since the mid 80’s we’ve been on the equivalent of a Saturday night drinking binge and now Sunday morning is here and the bell tolls. For the 90’s decade we felt the party would never end and that we could disconnect from our manufacturing roots and continue to prosper through financial services and tech startups alone. What we are finding is that the virtual world does not support the living standards we have come to expect for most of our population. If you look even deeper into this culture, you find also a disdain and embarrassment for the blue collar guy known now as “Joe Six Pack.” He is "the hurting person" the candidates keep talking about. We are equally embarrassed by the chicken or tobacco farmer who still loves his Mamma, apple pie, and NASCAR. The millions of people in rural and even suburban America that “cling to their guns and Bibles” and go to church every Sunday and talk openly about faith and the Godly precepts our country was founded on are painted as ignorant and not quite “with it”.
There’s a lot of emotion around “the war.” People don’t like the war; no body likes war. It costs lives and money. Liberals see Bush as a playground bully unwilling to employ diplomacy and even lying to Americans about why we are in Iraq. I’ve heard many fairly well educated people say things like,”Bush lied and took us to war just so he could get back at Saddam and Iraq’s oil.” Conservatives see Bush as the first leader in recent times willing to say publicly, “we gotta deal with these radicals who want to kill us and it’s probably better to fight them on their ground than ours (some examples leading up to 911 = U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen). What if after 911 instead of acting with serious force we would have just gone to talk to the leaders of the Muslim block of countries. While we were talking the extremists funded and fueled by Osama bin Laden and the crazed clerics would have continued carrying out plots to bomb, high jack and otherwise monkey wrench our cities.
Terrorists are not really what this is about fundamentally though. At the core is our country’s stance on intervention and nation building. What you believe about that is one dividing line between conservatives and liberals. We have been highly active in the intervention of unstable countries on a military level and humanitarian – just to name a few: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. James Payne from Yale said between the U.S. and England we have made 57 attempts at nation building with only 27 percent succeeding based on their criteria. James Dobbins with RAND studied U.S. nation building in recent history and identified “many factors—such as prior democratic experience, level of economic development, and social homogeneity—can influence the ease or difficulty of nation-building, but the single most important controllable determinant seems to be the level of effort, as measured in troops, money, and time.”
Does any country in the world have a right or responsibility to intervene in governments? If we go to Iraq, pull down Saddam and then set about trying to encourage a democratic government and build community centers, schools and all the other trappings of a democratic society are we being moralistic, imperialistic, or strategic? Are we saying that from those who have much; much is expected? Are we acting on the experience of having created and lived out a successful plan for society paralleled only by a few historic examples and thus deciding we have a duty? Richard Ebeling, Hillsdale College in Michigan, wrote on September 12, 2001 that America had aroused the anger of terrorists because of American political and military intervention around the world. He pointed out that since the Second World War, the U.S. government has taken it upon itself to serve as the global policeman and social engineer. “But being a global policeman requires the U.S. government to decide in each country into which it intervenes who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys.” In other words, the United States must end up taking sides in the domestic political, ideological, and economic conflicts in these other lands.”
What about the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout giving the Treasury Department authority to buy up all those assets in hopes of reselling them. The numbers are so big and the stakes so high neither candidate seems sure of the proper response. In the debate last night, neither would really answer the question about what to do. The key point made by David Wessels of the New York Times is this: "…will the financial system be able to lend money to consumers and businesses in the weeks ahead, because if they don't, the economy will come to a standstill." In Obama’s Denver speech if you didn’t know better according to Michael Gerson, Washington Post, you would have thought that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. John McCain was blasted for being out of touch and saying a few months ago that the fundamentals of our economy are good. We are in unchartered water. The only way forward is a thoughtful, civil bipartisan plan that somehow balances the Democrats rally cry for more regulation and the Republicans genetic disposition to free markets.
We can pontificate all day long about Republican versus Democratic philosophy but come November 4 you have to choose the man. One man must embody everything you trust and believe regarding what needs to be done about energy, climate change, health care, banking, jobs, foreign policy etc. One man must resonate deep within your mammalian brain as a leader – temperate and wise; able to seek and decipher council yet decisive. I am a moderate and I want that kind of government not an ideological or reactionary government. Here are some of the reasons I will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin:
S.RES.70 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.S.32 : A bill to reform the acquisition process of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.S.83 : A bill to provide increased rail transportation security.S.85 : A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.S.192 : A bill providing greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes.S.463 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes.S.519 : A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes.S.663 : A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the statutory designation of beneficiaries of the $100,000 death gratuity under section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, and to permit members of the Armed Forces to designate in writing their beneficiaries of choice in the event of their death while serving on active duty.S.1900 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.S.2172 : A bill to impose sanctions on officials of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to prohibit the importation of gems and hardwoods from Burma, to support democracy in Burma, and for other purposes.S.2890 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday.S.AMDT.28 to S.1 To provide congressional transparency. S.AMDT.1190 to S.1348 To require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes.
I learned that principle working within the high conflict arena of natural resources in the West. My work that started out with Americorp (Clinton’s domestic version of the Peace Corp) and led to a position riding shot gun to Mike Preston and the Montezuma County Federal Lands Program spanned 15 years. In those years, we got an up close view of how federal policies impact land based industries and ultimately families and the entire custom and culture of communities across much of the West. Much of what we did involved trying to bring people together and find win/win ways forward. In our county we worked hard to keep a diversified economy and preserve a place for our loggers and ranchers as well as the hikers, mountain bikers and latte drinkers. It’s not easy to do when people’s definition of community and sense of security collide. It’s parallel to what’s happening to us on a national scale. People, including myself, are passionate about the outcome and about whom they think is fit to be president. Yet, we can’t forget that when it’s all said and done, no matter who wins, at the end of the day we are Americans and we must press on with whatever work we have been given to do and continue to show the world that our foundation is still strong.
For the past month or so I have been trying to drill down into some of the issues and understand them from a factual basis not from a “spin.” Questions like why have so many jobs been lost to other countries, why we are fighting in the middle east, and why do we import 70 percent of our oil needs have been on my mind. I have found it hard to place blame squarely on the policies or philosophy of one party or the other which is why I become very suspect when I hear accusatory statements from friends or commentators that sound a lot like sound bites we’ve all heard on TV over and over. When I read the 2008 preamble for both party platforms and what they have on their websites describing what they are about, it’s pretty hard to decipher on face value the differences. Both parties want to lay claim to “a special commitment to America’s promise” and both talk about good wages, retiring with dignity, civic commitment, change, helping hurting people……. It’s what you call rhetoric and it is meant to stimulate our mammalian brains so that we like the candidate speaking. We are very susceptible to rhetoric and repeating the sound bites or fears stoked by our party of choice. I have heard numerous people from both parties parroting statements crafted by brilliant people like Frank Luntz: “The government's present system of taxation is lining the pockets of the rich while the middle class disappears before our eyes.” “Obama is a Muslim and would capitulate to the Muslim world.” “We are in the middle east only to get their oil.” Give me a break. Here’s what I have figured out, caring about America, the poor, the economy, health care, and all the other issues is not a market cornered by Democrats or Republicans. Good, principled people are concerned about those things and bad, unprincipled people don’t care.
Let’s get subterranean on a couple issues. The manufacturing sector has been hammered with the loss of 3.7 million jobs over the past seven years leaving only one-tenth of all U.S. jobs in the manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sector accounts for only 12.5% of gross domestic product in the U.S., while it makes up 36% of the Chinese economy. China's share in global manufacturing is forecast to overtake that of the U.S. by 2016, boosted by rapid gains in market share of textiles, basic metals, computer equipment and mineral product manufacturing. (Global Insight) . The giant sucking noise of jobs leaving the U.S. as Ross Perot so aptly stated is not the result of any one policy you can point to. Both Democrats and Republicans have supported free trade agreements beginning with Israel in 1985, Canada in 1988 and then NAFTA in 1994. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton talked tough on the campaign trail about cracking down on Mexico’s poor labor and environmental standards as a way to level the playing field and bring back lost jobs. Each promised to in some way to renegotiate NAFTA using these hammers. Yet, China has captured more jobs than any of those in trade agreements and they are a communist society that we have so far been unable to persuade toward greater regulation when it comes to human rights, currency, etc. We owe them like $500 trillion dollars and our businesses continue moving to China and other parts of Asia. All forecasters say we should expect more of the same. I spoke to a former executive with a manufacturing company that spent some time with transferring facilities to China. I asked, “How does it work? Do you pay them to set things up, build your facility?” His answer was, “I don’t really know how they do it but the government takes care of it. What ever you want. They have the money available. They build it for you, give you long term leases on the land, and find the employees.” Sounds like a heck of a deal; hard to resist when American’s are standing in line at Wal Mart to buy more cheaply made goods because they can’t afford or can’t get quality goods. Is this condition the government’s fault? Should Bill Clinton have put the breaks on NAFTA before this trend got too out of hand? Is it George Bush’s secret “doctrine” that encouraged companies like GE to commoditize its appliance business and artificially force prices down by manufacturing in Asia?
I am ashamed to admit it, but I think we are collectively to blame for overextending credit, lapping up increasingly cheaply priced and made goods. We condoned a culture that allowed executives to earn $13 to $47 million a year while pursuing short term gain instead of innovation, investment and research in people and products. Instead they spent their time and money setting up facilities in China and financial services in urban centers. We went along because it felt good to see our portfolios grow while we played golf, regardless of our party affiliation. It’s been said a lot over the last couple years, since the mid 80’s we’ve been on the equivalent of a Saturday night drinking binge and now Sunday morning is here and the bell tolls. For the 90’s decade we felt the party would never end and that we could disconnect from our manufacturing roots and continue to prosper through financial services and tech startups alone. What we are finding is that the virtual world does not support the living standards we have come to expect for most of our population. If you look even deeper into this culture, you find also a disdain and embarrassment for the blue collar guy known now as “Joe Six Pack.” He is "the hurting person" the candidates keep talking about. We are equally embarrassed by the chicken or tobacco farmer who still loves his Mamma, apple pie, and NASCAR. The millions of people in rural and even suburban America that “cling to their guns and Bibles” and go to church every Sunday and talk openly about faith and the Godly precepts our country was founded on are painted as ignorant and not quite “with it”.
There’s a lot of emotion around “the war.” People don’t like the war; no body likes war. It costs lives and money. Liberals see Bush as a playground bully unwilling to employ diplomacy and even lying to Americans about why we are in Iraq. I’ve heard many fairly well educated people say things like,”Bush lied and took us to war just so he could get back at Saddam and Iraq’s oil.” Conservatives see Bush as the first leader in recent times willing to say publicly, “we gotta deal with these radicals who want to kill us and it’s probably better to fight them on their ground than ours (some examples leading up to 911 = U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in the port of Aden in Yemen). What if after 911 instead of acting with serious force we would have just gone to talk to the leaders of the Muslim block of countries. While we were talking the extremists funded and fueled by Osama bin Laden and the crazed clerics would have continued carrying out plots to bomb, high jack and otherwise monkey wrench our cities.
Terrorists are not really what this is about fundamentally though. At the core is our country’s stance on intervention and nation building. What you believe about that is one dividing line between conservatives and liberals. We have been highly active in the intervention of unstable countries on a military level and humanitarian – just to name a few: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. James Payne from Yale said between the U.S. and England we have made 57 attempts at nation building with only 27 percent succeeding based on their criteria. James Dobbins with RAND studied U.S. nation building in recent history and identified “many factors—such as prior democratic experience, level of economic development, and social homogeneity—can influence the ease or difficulty of nation-building, but the single most important controllable determinant seems to be the level of effort, as measured in troops, money, and time.”
Does any country in the world have a right or responsibility to intervene in governments? If we go to Iraq, pull down Saddam and then set about trying to encourage a democratic government and build community centers, schools and all the other trappings of a democratic society are we being moralistic, imperialistic, or strategic? Are we saying that from those who have much; much is expected? Are we acting on the experience of having created and lived out a successful plan for society paralleled only by a few historic examples and thus deciding we have a duty? Richard Ebeling, Hillsdale College in Michigan, wrote on September 12, 2001 that America had aroused the anger of terrorists because of American political and military intervention around the world. He pointed out that since the Second World War, the U.S. government has taken it upon itself to serve as the global policeman and social engineer. “But being a global policeman requires the U.S. government to decide in each country into which it intervenes who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad guys.” In other words, the United States must end up taking sides in the domestic political, ideological, and economic conflicts in these other lands.”
What about the proposed $700 billion Wall Street bailout giving the Treasury Department authority to buy up all those assets in hopes of reselling them. The numbers are so big and the stakes so high neither candidate seems sure of the proper response. In the debate last night, neither would really answer the question about what to do. The key point made by David Wessels of the New York Times is this: "…will the financial system be able to lend money to consumers and businesses in the weeks ahead, because if they don't, the economy will come to a standstill." In Obama’s Denver speech if you didn’t know better according to Michael Gerson, Washington Post, you would have thought that every American home was on the auction block, every car stalled for lack of gasoline, every credit card bill past due, every worker treated like a Russian serf. John McCain was blasted for being out of touch and saying a few months ago that the fundamentals of our economy are good. We are in unchartered water. The only way forward is a thoughtful, civil bipartisan plan that somehow balances the Democrats rally cry for more regulation and the Republicans genetic disposition to free markets.
We can pontificate all day long about Republican versus Democratic philosophy but come November 4 you have to choose the man. One man must embody everything you trust and believe regarding what needs to be done about energy, climate change, health care, banking, jobs, foreign policy etc. One man must resonate deep within your mammalian brain as a leader – temperate and wise; able to seek and decipher council yet decisive. I am a moderate and I want that kind of government not an ideological or reactionary government. Here are some of the reasons I will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin:
S.RES.70 : A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Commander of Multinational Forces-Iraq and all United States personnel under his command should receive from Congress the full support necessary to carry out the United States mission in Iraq.S.32 : A bill to reform the acquisition process of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.S.83 : A bill to provide increased rail transportation security.S.85 : A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify that territories and Indian tribes are eligible to receive grants for confronting the use of methamphetamine.S.192 : A bill providing greater transparency with respect to lobbying activities, and for other purposes.S.463 : A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes.S.519 : A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes.S.663 : A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to repeal the statutory designation of beneficiaries of the $100,000 death gratuity under section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, and to permit members of the Armed Forces to designate in writing their beneficiaries of choice in the event of their death while serving on active duty.S.1900 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution.S.2172 : A bill to impose sanctions on officials of the State Peace and Development Council in Burma, to prohibit the importation of gems and hardwoods from Burma, to support democracy in Burma, and for other purposes.S.2890 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a highway fuel tax holiday.S.AMDT.28 to S.1 To provide congressional transparency. S.AMDT.1190 to S.1348 To require undocumented immigrants receiving legal status to pay owed back taxes.
That’s just a sampling of bills McCain supported for 2007. You can look up Obama’s record and others at http://thomas.loc.gov/ Just to add a couple more: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub L. 107-155 and the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (S.139) with Joe Lieberman.
On the personal side:
July 29, 1967 downed by friendly fire in North Vietnam
October 26, 1967 bombed by Vietnamese breaking both legs and arms and beginning of a five year stay at the Hanoi Hilton without medical treatment and subjected to torture. Stayed with men despite option to leave early.
Naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
22 years service in the U.S. Navy
24 years service in the Senate and 2 years in the House of Representatives
No, military experience nor twenty- plus years as a legislator does not necessarily make you fit to be president but it says something about character. Remaining in a prison camp when you don’t have to and continuing to serve in Congress when your wife alone could support you quite nicely says something about character and values and principles. You can find flaws with John McCain but one of them is not being a self-serving, arrogant person. I don’t agree 100 percent with everything McCain has said or done, but I trust a man who survived a Vietnamese prison camp and turned the experience into a deeply held love for country and desire to serve and to do the right thing.
Our government was principally set up to protect rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness. These rights are within individuals, not groups. The principles of justice and equality the authors of this country promulgated ran counter to any former successful regime as described by Mackubin Owens, Professor of Strategy and Force Planning at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. Before the U.S. was created all systems were based on the principle of the interest of the strong. Our forefathers founded the U.S. on a principle not of the strong but of justice. I trust that John McCain fully understands that principle of justice through his training and life experience. I believe he would give his life to maintain that principle.
Don’t forget to vote November 4!
To get good side by side on issues without partisan spin go to these sites
Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/
Bank Rate.com
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20080128_issues_a1.asp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
