A curious thing I often hear both sides argue about is what this country's founders would currently want for the nation, how they'd see us, etc. Sure, as if any of us have a clue what men who lived in 1776 would think about today's world. They'd probably be pretty intrigued by the cars and all the tasty foods. Ben Franklin would probably enjoy our delicious popsicles and other assorted frozen delicacies, while Thomas Jefferson and George Washington may want to take one of those Dodge Chargers out for a test drive. Something tells me they'd make a beeline for the Dodge dealership. Don't ask me why, it's just a hunch.
But let me take this seriously for a moment, join this vast "what if" club and offer that I think the founders would find our democracy to be quite fantastic, thank you very much. We are, after all, the most powerful country in the world and one hell of a free society. High-fives all around from the founding fathers on the overarching freedom stuff. Well done America. Bravo.
However, I think it's a safe bet that there would also be things they may not find as heartening. The bickering. The backbiting. The Moores. The Coulters. The intellectually dishonest bombs that each side throws over the fence at one another. No pretense of reasoned debate anymore. Just talking heads and screaming blogs.
No...Tom, George and Ben wouldn't be too fond of the signal to noise ratio in politics today. And they'd probably be smart enough to realize that the reason more people don't come out to vote is not because they're lazy. No, this country isn't filled with lazy people. What we do have, however, is a very tired nation. This partisan nonsense wears people down so they don't have any fight left in them. Count me in that group. However, there comes a point at which people get sick of being tired, and that's usually the time when they're the most dangerous.
Yes, look closely, and you won't see a country divided. We all see that we're better than polls, pundits and talking points. We are a people who believe in a collection of very powerful ideas and who would fight and die to maintain them for this generation and those to come. And where would you find the greatest number of these people? Well, you already know the answer. All this talk of a moderate majority is true.
However, there are a few sticking points. For example, the question I'm often asked about my blog Donklephant, and centrism in general, is "What exactly do you stand for?" I think it's a fair question, considering that terms like "centrist" or "moderate" bring to mind images of a) a person being ripped apart by people on both sides (a political tug of war, if you will), and b) a person who can't make up their mind about anything. And this is where I'm supposed to say, "Nothing could be further from the truth."
Well, I can't. Moderates, centrists...yeah, we can be wishy-washy. We change our minds. We do, on average, take a little longer to come to a conclusion. And frankly, isn't that what's lacking in the current body politic? Because right now all we're being presented with is a reality that you'd find in the halls of a fictional high school from some cheesy 80s teen movie, not in the halls of government. Who do we have to blame for it? Take a look in the mirror folks. We've sat on the sidelines for too long now. It's time to do something about this nonsense. And so...Unity08.
Listen, I'm not going to ramble on about what Unity08 stands for, where it should go or what they should do. They've got a good vision and the team to make it happen. But what I will say, and continue to say, is that an idea like this is long overdue. Something tells me the founders would think so too.
Of course maybe they'd want more delicious frozen treats and faster muscle cars. Your guess is as good as mine.
Subscribe
First, the founding fathers would throw up lunch from the jet flight to Washington... then when going thru their email they would pull out a revolver and shoot themselves! No really, I'm sure they would see the clear division between the interests of rich and poor... reflected in the division between democrat and republican, unions and free trade, most of all American against American... I'm sure they would pick up the Unity08 flag, flip off those in congress, and lead us in battle!
The framers of the constitution struggled with establishing the balance between the rights of individuals and the power of government to act for the common good when they first met in 1787. They set up a system of checks and balances, emphasized the separation of powers and passed the bill of rights insuring against the exercise of arbitrary and capricious governmental power that could infringe on a great many individual liberties.
But what the framers were most concerned with protecting were the rights of property and those who had it. The opportunity that was missed was to establish a truly democratic state in which economic justice as well as universal human rights was the law of the land.
The men who wrote the Constitution were all men of property and constituted an elite segment of society. The rights of property were paramount in their minds, especially their own. As the eminent, late historian, Richard Hofstadter said, all American political traditions, Jeffersonian, Federalist, Jacksonian or otherwise, "...shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition... [T]hey ... accepted the economic virtues of a capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man."
The framers missed the opportunity to make good on the words in the Declaration of Independence and give to all people, including women and those who were then slaves, the same rights. They distrusted the uneducated masses and believed in providing for the common good thru the use of governmental power only for very limited purposes. They also carefully crafted a system that would continue to put power largely in the hand of the propertied classes.
As Hofstadter noted, it was inevitable that Jefferson's laissez faire economics became the politics of the most conservative thinkers, not his concern with the rights of man. Hofstadter also said that Jacksonian democracy was really just a "phase in the expansion of liberated capitalism." The fear of tyrrany -- then and now -- was to a great degree the fear of interference with one's unfettered property rights.
As Hofstadter saw American history up to 1865 and beyond, a common ideology of "self-help, free enterprise, competition, and beneficent cupidity" has guided the Republic since its inception. By cupidity, Hosftadter meant that efforts to promote the common good through the actions of government were hit and miss, spotty, and based more on tactical political considerations than otherwise.
The missed opportunities, the things that could have been done better, other than ending slavery and granting women and ordinary people the vote right off, are not very different from the issues facing us today: Improving the country's education system, its transportation and energy infrastructure, curbing the unfettered use of monopoly or plutocratic corporate power, protecting public health, establishing the right of ordinary working people to a living wage, to health care, and granting access to and assistance for many of the necessities of life that the wealthiest Americans simply take for granted.
These options all have been taken off the table by a system that places more value on the ability of a few to manipulate their wealth to skew our political system for their own advantage than it places on the public good.
The balance was struck in the beginning in favor of economic individualism at the expense of the ability of government to provide adequately for the public good.
TR said: "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. "
And that remains our problem to this day.
The noisy, seemingly endless American culture war -- fought over such issues as abortion, flag burning, same sex marriage, Hollywood depravity and the alleged disparity between mainstream values and those of cultural elites -- is a giant smoke screen that clouds the real cause of Middle America's distress.
And what might that real cause be? I think it's economic. To be specific, it's unconstrained free-market capitalism, which has routed the social and political forces that once kept it in check.
If not capitalism, what?
We live in a capitalist state now, but we also lived in a capitalist state in the 1960s and the 1950s and the 1940s. And yet it was a very different country. The balance of power between labor and management hadn't collapsed. Wealth distribution hadn't reverted to a 19th-century pattern, with ever-increasing concentration at the top.
That capitalism was a better model.
TR said:
"The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows.”
"The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so far as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens."
In short, our founders might not be the best folks to guide us here. How far we allow private property rights to be pushed at the expense of the public interest -- this defines the fundamental political question of our time.
I don't have any term papers to paste here like Seneca, not do I enjoy seeing anyone rewrite history. Clue: The founding fathers were not moderates nor were the presidents that we revere. They were radical men wrestling real time with real problems. Lots of bickering, and a whole thesaurus worth of like terms. This objective to find a moderate platform or candidate by compromise (something for everybody) is counter productive. We need to get it right, not a harmonized hodge podge of conformity. If the people wanted moderate, they would have voted for bob dole.
First of all, I would like to say that Justin Gardiner's words were very well put.
Secondly, and the reason I feel compelled to reply to this topic, is that I wish to offer criticism of Richard Hofstadter's revisionist history of the founding fathers, which Seneca just summed up.
Before one takes Hofstadter's account, I would like to make the argument that he overgeneralizes history, to the point of deception.
Firstly, Hofstadter contends that the framers of the Constitution were social "elites", in Seneca's representation. The definition of "elite" is very important here. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Monroe, Adams, and the others, were not Princes. They were not Dukes. Nor were they the counts, barons, or parochial leaders. They were "ordinary" men, part of the emerging urban middle class in America, while Europe was still tangled in a mess of the rights of nobility--nobility that held "titles" to far greater swaths of land than any American owned. Contextually, the soon-to-be-U.S. was a very socially mobile country.
Secondly, Hofstadter's assertion that the framers created the Constitution for the purpose of protecting their own personal property is lacking tremendously in historical base. In the original, unamended Constitution, the word "property" never arises. In fact, it was those who initially opposed the Constitution's ratification, the anti-Federalists, who sought a Bill of Rights to be added. It was the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, a concession to the anti-Federalists, that added protection of life, liberty, and property against the Federal Government. Considering that it was the small farmer--far from an elite--who made up the bulk of anti-Federalist, pro-Bill of Rights support, pro-5th Amendment support, to think that the framers created the Constitution just to protect their own land holdings is garbage. The Constitution was a direct response to the failed Articles of Confederation, which I think every American owes him/herself to read.
Finally, I would like to conclude with a piece on the American Revolution. John Locke, a hugely influential philosopher on the minds of many founding fathers, created the doctrine of natural rights--those of "life, liberty, and property". When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he mentioned "certain unalienable rights", among those, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". That Jefferson chose *not* to quote "property" like in Locke's similar list of natural rights, I think, says something. At the very least, it weakens Hofstadter's argument.
Yes, the framers were in favor of a "hands off" approach to economics--it was when Great Britain was keeping its "hands off" of the American Colonies, and the rules as to whom they were allowed to trade with, that the framers saw as one reason for America's economic prosperity. Grievance 17 of the Declaration of Independence illustrates this. In their day and age, *that* was economic justice. And I concur with it today. Yet to portray them as politicians seeking to greedily preserve the wealth of their social class, I think, is a grave revisionist inaccuracy of Mr. Hofstadter's.
Although the framers of the Constitution, and our founding fathers, were far from unanimous in their opinions, they have left a legacy of unity through their mutual respect for one another. We should be thankful that the members of Unity, also not unanimous in our opinions, are still, more or less, unanimous in our respect. The time has come again for us to inject this vaccine of political respect into the Presidential Office, lest we let another fall to the pervading plague.
when people bring up the founding fathers, like they agreed on anything. They had the same divisions we do now, interests of business vs idealists of the people. To what level should democracy rule and should mob rule be kept in check. Federal power vs states power. Yellow journalism. All of it. You can find a founding father quote to support whatever you believe because it was all the same then too!
Frankly, I think it's time to move beyond the founding fathers.. as they built a system to allow to grow beyond them.. and rebuild our democracy to enforce transparency and accountability. We've gotten too big and too complex to allow things to keep floating as they have been for so long.
Basically, the polarization of our nation is and has always been because we have a system that favors the existence of two and only two parties. Thus, there can only be two responses to any question or issue; left and right, democrat and republican, liberal or conservative. That is the chain we must break if a richer, more in depth, more REPRESENTATIVE government and public discussion is what we want.
I see a lot of posting here by a lot of activists with pet causes, and I suppose I'm one of them. But I do honestly believe at this time that the two party system is the cause of our "bi polar" national character. And, that we would be much better served if you could vote for who represented you without fear of "throwing your vote away".
Condorcet voting. It's time for our process to mature and be more democratic. The world is too complex for black and white or binary solutions to serve us any longer.
.
Hats off to Seneca for rejecting a shopping spree for Jefferson and Washington.
But Seneca and I, who agree on goals 100%, I will bet cannot agree on solutions!
If we cannot, after knowing more than presidents dead for 200 years, then the Founders cannot be blamed for Hofstadters view of their positions or imperfections.
The problem begins with accounting for the modern replacement for gold coin -- that is fiat money.
Ben Franklin used fiat money the right way -- as money to represent goods and services for sale -- NOT to represent pledged assets to be liquidated to discharge debt (including interest) no matter the economic damage done.
Lincoln used greenbacks the same way Franklin used Philadeplpia money ahead of the Revolution. Lincoln and Franklin had the answers -- Hofstadter doesn't have the right questions.
We must do as Ben and Abe did. We must compute the additional purchasing power we need to buy commercial stuff at a profit to produers who pay fair union wages.
This requires a wage subsidy to do for labor what ag subsidies do for farmers.
We must also compute the need for national and environmental security, including the need for heavy industry for defense, and the need for full employment and or full incomes for all people.
These last needs mean subsidies for suppliers for the missing production to protect our children and ourselves in future years.
With supply subsidized, demand must also be subsidized to ensure we buy the stuff to defend us and make the earth as green as it can be.
None of this will tax the rich. All of it will come from full PRODUCTION by Americans and their robots.
The only tax we'll need is to prevent inflation. We may need rationing of stuff in short supply for the time it takes to produce it or a substitute for it.
Now Seneca -- make me lose my bet.
If you and I can't compromise on a solution we prove that your fault- finding with our history is bunk.
It will prove that ignorance, not greed, is the root cause of all our problems.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
First, I must say I am intrigued by the comment about using "money the right way -- as money to represent goods and services for sale -- NOT to represent pledged assets to be liquidated to discharge debt (including interest) no matter the economic damage done."
I think I need more info about this concept for not being an economist, I'm not sure I follow the argument.
You say: "Lincoln used greenbacks the same way Franklin used Philadeplpia money ahead of the Revolution. We must do as Ben and Abe did. We must compute the additional purchasing power we need to buy commercial stuff at a profit to produers who pay fair union wages."
Then we are off to the concept of subsidies in a way I've not seen it discussed. So, rather than disagree, rather than fall on my sword and defend poor dead Hofstadter, I'd prefer to hear more about these ideas before allowing my prejudices, feelings, and beliefs substitute for a considered reaction.
As for the other commenter, I've been out of the term paper business for some 40 years now - and I've not all the time in the world to write this sort of thing, so I take what I have written in once place and paste it in another as that is rather an efficient way to spread one's views and to get interesting reactions, such as Mr Gelles'.
As for the comment attempting to take umbrage at Prof Hofstadter, for heavens sake, man, do you always immediately swing for the opposite field's fences when you find an unorthodox interpretation?
What amuses is the very silly statement: "to think that the framers created the Constitution just to protect their own land holdings is garbage."
As I have written elsewhere, those who defend privilege and seek to deify our "founding fathers," engage frequently in illogical arguments, such as this one. This is the strawman fallacy -- for the comment sets up a statement neither I nor Hofstadter made by taking what I did say to an absurd extreme, then knocks this silly formulation down, with the impression given they have responded to me. Since my argument was misstated, the comment is no response at all, but the usual subterfuge of attempting to change the subject.
In no way did either the good Prof Hofstadter nor I intend to say our founding fathers created all this just to protect their own holdings. I said it was, however, a very salient part of who they were and why they acted as they did, for it could not be otherwise and still be a rational thought. At once we are to take these men as so beneficent that they must be granted holy status. Add to that the idea these men were "ordinary" simply is completely at variance with reality, which increases the irrationality of the reaction.
Whatever the status of aristocrats, in the colonies there arose people of very significant economic means as compared with other, more ordinary people.
Perhaps a visit to Mount Vernon or Monticello might be in order. Average homes of ordinary men? Thomas Jefferson was an ordinary man, was he? You have seen the man's library, have you?
Sorry, but to accuse me and Hofstadter of over generalizing history seems rather funny put next to statements like those taking umbrage with the good professor and me.
We are not talking about holy men - but flesh and blood people who actually lived. I think Hofstadter's views in his book The American Political Tradition not revisionist at all - but rather realistic and pragmatic.
Does anyone deny that Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of laissez faire economics? Is that not what has become the central tenet of what we now see as conservatism?
Regardless how radical a break with the concepts of monarchy and aristocracy our revolution was, as it undoubtedly was, my posts are aimed at the central concept of the role of unusually large accumulations of wealth in relation to the public interest.
The fact that after the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution slaves remained slaves, that women and the folks without sufficient assets or property were not given the vote, cannot be excused merely due to the times. It is always convenient to explain away injustice due to the "times." It means, in reality, that the men who wrote the Constitution, like Jefferson, were engaging in a bit of hyperbole, speaking figuratively, and in reality only meant part of what they said. They in fact acted at variance with the plain meaning of many of the words they used to sell their new ideas. Instead, as practical, pragmatic, and economically advantaged people, while they moved radically away from monarchy and aristocracy, they protected their own interests as a class.
To deny this, in my view, is to substitute irrationality for reason, to ignore the plain facts of the case, for merely to stand on the grounds and go through the house at Monticello is to appreciate what I say.
At the core of it, this is the same issue that Theodore Roosevelt addressed and I believe got right.
I see it will take some time for this idea to get around. But then, reading about history and really studying it has never been the most popular occupation of the electorate as a whole.
I could cite many other historians whose insights also reflect on the economic substance underlying all the myths and nonsense with which many dress up the personalities and events of the past.
Folks who defend privilege, who defend fundamental economic inequity and inequality of opportunity always try to change the subject.
What are the consequences of all this semi-religious devotion to Adam Smith's allegedly invisible hand?
They are made manifest in the increasing degradation of those on the losing end of the inequitable equation in this country. Something comes from that.
There will at some point be a price we all shall pay for that. I lived as a young man through the era where America's cities erupted in flames every summer.
Our antecedents, even some of our most conservative leaders and presidents, saw the danger in their own times and moved to make corrections.
Rather than engage in a silly debate over dead historians, I'd rather simply again ask straight out:
What about the Fair Deal -
what about economic justice in this country?
Do we have anything like it now?
Are we headed towards or away from it?
What will the price for that be?
Now stop changing the subject and answer the questions.
If the founders were here today, they'd be appalled at the size of the US government and its intrusion into the lives of the people. They'd probably have some serious problems with our society and culture as a whole. They would probably be even more appalled to see how special interests and big money have totally overrun the political system.
They'd hate the bickering too, but they'd probably hate these things even more, because in the end they're even more important.
Hell, they had duels back then as well as their fair share of bickering. But the one thing we can say is that at least they understood that a small restricted government was a good government. The Democrats these days sure don't understand that, and the Republicans apparently have followed suit under George Bush.
Historically speaking, when the Constitution was coming about you had two major sects, thr Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Both sides used their talking points vigorously against each other and eventually had to rely on compromise and extremely careful warning. The idea the Founding Fathers found partisanship anathema is ridiculous, the framers were very clearly partisan Federalists. They just came out of a War with Britain followed by the Articles of Confedation, a failed governmental system. Now was not the time to be "forming a consensus everyone can agree upon", now was the time to posit radical ideas that would fix the problems with the Articles, and Federalism alone or anti-Federalism alone would be more effective then some mishmashed hodge-podge of both that both sides barely agree to.
In the end the "mighty middle" is composed of less "might" than "middle". The majority of the middle is not well thought or spoken, they simply cannot decide and get swayed back and forth by the cheap tricks of either campaign. Partisanship arises not from stupidity or ignorance but from having a set of principles to adhere to. At least the left stands for something. The things it stands for may have been proven by history to bring about the worst evils possible, but at the time of the creation of those principles they didn't know that. (Of course, once Marx saw what the Commies turned his theory into he proclaimed he was not a Marxist on his death bed, which did not bode well for the theory, I suppose.)
I've said it before. I'd rather be a partisan who stands for a coherent set of principles than someone whose only principle is appeasing everyone through compromise. Compromise only works if both sides have valid points and the aims of both can be achieved in one coherent system. Otherwise, compromise generates more problems than it solves because it appeases everyone temporarily while satisfying noone permanently, and it is the people who end up getting the shaft from these convoluted compromises.
If you want to work on developing and influencing the direction of Unity08 rather than just reading the blog and maybe posting, there's a place for you right now. UnitySupporters.Com has two growing communities:
Taking action politically means coordinating with people. Come talk with people... then start doing something!
-Jennifer
We all know that gold taken to Europe by Spain caused inflation in the price of goods against gold.
We know a nation that prints fiat money runs the risk of ruinous inflation -- about as bad as the risk of deflation and depression if the nation does not.
You do not have to be an economist to know that money cannot be too cheap nor too dear, if you want to promote full employment, union wages, hard work and happy days.
My motto in my signature says -- Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Seneca must comment first on it, and then we will find solutions together.
He may say tax the rich to redistribute money.
I will say tax transactions to help funnel resources into production of ordinary necessities for everyone -- and away from production of luxuries if and when people who are not rich face lower levels of the production of necessities than are in the public interest.
The big difference in these positions is my emphasis on full employment and full production so that shelves are full of necessities and everyone can afford them.
In particular government must be able to afford public necessities like education, public safety, the common defense, infrastructure, etc.
The commercial market nearly everywhere produces much that is not a high priority for a civilized society.
America's priorities must be to produce the material assets and habitual loyalties to end poverty, pollution, and avoidable disease, corruption, crime, conflict and war.
If people are out of work or producing junk mail and similar waste, their labor must be attracted to production of missing priorty goods and services.
If this is done, money to buy what is produced can be printed -- if it too is missing.
Neoliberal economists call this a Keynesian mixture of markets and strategic functional finance. They don't all think it can work.
They know it works in wartime.
Well -- we are at war. It's time to admit it, and fight and spend to win.
Now we do not want to re-fight imperial wars -- this time with China, India or Russia. We do want to fight enemies who have attacked us first -- like Jihadist fascist crazies looking for sex after they're dead.
No doubt the complexities of production, diplomacy and war, have not been accounted for above.
Nothing is as easily done as said.
But Seneca sounds like a thoughtful guy. Given a little time and a few exchanges we ought to be able to see that the rich, like us, are not the problem -- if they save their money in a bank or invest it in a business serving the public interest.
So why tax them -- when what we want is to pay the poor a lot of money so they can be savers too. Moreover, if we tax them they will resist and ruin it for themselves and everyone else.
John Gelles
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
Brian in MA, we really have to do this again? Haven't we done this over on Donklephant a few times already?
You say this: In the end the "mighty middle" is composed of less "might" than "middle". The majority of the middle is not well thought or spoken, they simply cannot decide and get swayed back and forth by the cheap tricks of either campaign.
But you only get swayed by the cheap tricks of one side of the aisle, right? So somehow partisanship is pure and being a moderate is not? You're not really making that point, are you?
Listen, you know and I know that partisanship has clearly gotten out of control in this country and your comments about centrism and compromise are wrong headed. Centrism isn't about compromise. Instead, it's about finding the best ideas regardless of where they come from. It's also about treating your fellow commenters with respect and not trying to tear them down in order to prove a point. This is why people like Moore and Coulter are so destructive to the idea of getting back to some type of place where we can have a lively debate, but not think the other side is evil or trying to purposely harm the country.
I would have thought you had realized this by now.
Oh well.
I have been so motivated by my generation and my peers who feel so passionatly about Unity that I have been blinded by many others. Today I was awakened. As I sat at my computer and worked on my tasks, my co-worker turned to me and asked why he should write a letter to someone who was too young to vote. He said that he felt that every action done by a politican should be motivated by re-election. I was apalled. Someone who actually wanted the person he worked for to be motivated by re-election. I simply responded by saying I'm glad I work for a politician who is NOT motivated by re-election and does what he thinks is best for his constituients. I've been so fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with such an enlightened group of young people that I forgot about those of my generation how feel that the ususal way of politics is acceptable. Our politicans must set a better example for our nations young people, much like the man I work for has.
Long ago, around the time that the movie The Graduate was popular, an uncle of mine who was the owner of a now defunct clothing factory in New England took me aside as I prepared to enter law school.
I guess he had seen the movie, or perhaps not; but he replayed a scene with me that could have been a satire on that movie.
He said to me, very seriously: "I have one word of advice for you: taxes." Of course, had I the inclination or the head for numbers he had I could have taken his advice and made quite a good living on tax law over the last 35 years or so.
But I didn't, so while I do my own taxes and understand a great deal about doing that work, I don't fool myself that I understand the rationale, if any, behind many of the laws, rules and details.
Mr. Gelles is on to part of the solution, to be sure. I do not believe we differ significantly, but I wish to avoid making this too simple. Neither Teddy Roosevelt nor I would solve the problem of plutocracy and increasing corporatism by merely "taxing the rich." That's not a solution by itself. Look at TR's call for government regulation -- not bigger government, more effective government.
You make government more effective by getting rid of the duplicative layers of "program" people engaged primarily in producing publications, information, and outreach -- most of this is actually simply making products meant to claim credit or success for the programs and thus ensure their continued bloated full time equivalencies. Such is the Wash DC power game within the civil service.
But no agency has a surfeit of enforcement lawyers - no independent regulatory agency spends enough on its actual enforcement work.
That is because the business community that would be regulated by these enforcement shops have diverted funding from them -- another way to change the subject.
No, merely taxing the rich is only half of it. Even taxing the rich is much more complex than the phrase itself, of course, but you have to start with the proposition that there is a growing gap between those with significant means - say for the sake of argument only those making more than $1 million per year -- and the rest of the population. The very top fraction of the top 1% of the population is literally looting this country at the expense of the public interest and it has got to stop.
It has to stop because much of this looting is, like Enron's activity, fraudulent, illegal, and harmful to the public interest. Yet we have inadequate enforcement assets with which to contend.
Now there are some questions I would have about transaction, consumption and/or Value Added taxation. Not having to live with these forms of taxation to any significant extent, I'm no expert, but I've a glimmer of some concerns there.
Mr. Gelles says: "If people are out of work or producing junk mail and similar waste, their labor must be attracted to production of missing priorty goods and services."
The key problem with this is decision making: who decides and under what criteria what is "waste"? Who sets the priorities? That needs some close examination and not merely reference to how we did it during WW II -- we are in a different time and place now.
Next, Mr. Gelles says "the rich, like us, are not the problem -- if they save their money in a bank or invest it in a business serving the public interest."
Exactly the problem, because the rich to which I refer are not saving their money in a bank or investing in a way that serves the public interest. I start from that proposition for that's where TR's New Nationalism started as well.
The family that owns a home or two, has enough to put kids thru school and retire, these folks are not the problem.
Those who either inherit OR amass thru unfair and/or illegal means truly vast amounts of wealth are the problem. People who make money like Mr. Gates did almost without exception engage in anti-competitive activity to monopolize their industry and secure their position. Then they become philanthropic to "give back" what they should not have been allowed to take in the first place. We've been here before -- you can look it up. Having taken the course on Anti-Trust Law and practised law for some 30 years now, I think I have a fairly good appreciation of what I'm talking about - I'm not making this up. Go read the history of the Standard Oil case. Anti-competitive activity and monopoly power is still a problem we need to address.
TR pointed out that he had no quarrel with people who saved their money or otherwise obtained their fortunes through activity or investment serving the public interest. But I am making reference to many in our society at the very very top of the food chain who have obtained their money in no such way as saving, or investing in the public interest.
Of course, the problem with my view is the same problem TR faced in his time: decision making, who is to decide and under what criteria what is in the public interest and what kind of money making is "unfair" or not in the public interest?
My answer is, certainly not elected representatives who do not represent their constituents or the public interest, but only the special interests of those who make the most significant financial contributions to those representatives to keep them in power and in thrall to those interests.
How to decide is what I want to see discussed to see if there is any real basis for the compromises or centrism Unity08 says it wants to see.
Mr Gelles asks: "So why tax them [the rich] -- when what we want is to pay the poor a lot of money so they can be savers too. Moreover, if we tax them they will resist and ruin it for themselves and everyone else."
We should not tax the poor at all and we have gone a long way toward that exact policy already.
We should tax the rich -- the $1 million a year crowd -- at a rate that fairly makes their contribution proportionate to their income and meet the requirements of the public interest, be it education, transportation or our crumbling sewage treatment infrastructure. Why? because the nature of the "truly swollen" fortune, in TR's terms, makes it fundamentally different from a family's savings or their investments. We are talking about wealth so great as to move mountains - like literally cutting the tops of them off and throwing the rocks into the valleys below ruining the landscape forever for future generations of Americans.
This kind of wealth lays waste throughout our country, throwing people out of work, distorting our media, polluting the very fabric of our society.
But more than this, besides taxation of the rich, we need stronger government regulation and law enforcement against illegal activity and money making not in the public interest.
I'll go further and say flatly that I favor piercing the corporate veil much more often and more easily. No longer should individuals be economically protected by this clever legal sleight of hand -- the corporation -- which is merely an ingenious device for individual profit without individual responsibility. I'm for individual responsibility, no ifs ands or buts.
Mr. Gelles says: "the rich, like us, are not the problem." I refer in this case to F. Scott Fitzgerald, whose The Great Gatsby is justly known for the power of the substantive message implicit in the entire work: The rich -- and I might add, the powerful -- are NOT like us - they are different from us in that they are soft on the outside and hard on the inside, our opposites, in fact. Their entire moral sense is warped by their wealth - they talk a good bit about values and morality, but the privileged top of the food chain don't practice what they preach and don't actually believe a word of what they say in this vein. If one should learn nothing else from history, one should glean at least this much.
My remaining concern with reliance on transaction, consumption, and value added taxation is whether in fact these forms of taxation result in a system more fair than otherwise. I am interested to know whether they have positive economic effects rather than the reverse, for to dictate consumption patterns, like determining what is "waste," can be a tricky business.
But I'd be open to looking at all of these -- so long as we act and soon to throw out the plutocracy of special interests that have a lock on our government.
Your question about partisanship being 'pure' as opposed to being a moderate misses the point. Partisanship is not a matter of being pure, but of conviction and decisiveness. "Decide who you wish to be, then do what you must do," as someone once said.
That's no different than what you say about Centrism being about the best ideas. But what ARE the best ideas? That's arguable, even among centrists.
So have all the lively debates you want, but at the end of the day YOU MUST DECIDE. That means winners and losers on the battlefield of ideas. Don't expect too much civility at that point.
Stem cell research is not against MY religion. If stem cell research is against your religion, then when the cures start rolling in, just say NO it's against my religion. The Jehoval Witnesses understand how it works. They have been saying no to blood transfusions for years. If we had a Jehovah Witness for president could she or he say no more blood transfussions? Just another reason why Church and State must be separate. We must not allow our health care research or any research to be hijacked.
1000petals
I've been away for four days, and I'm quite interested to find that more or less the same thing seems to have happened on the various posts that I was following. Specifically, I see the discussion veering off in directions suggested by advocates who are frequently articulate and invariably zealous, but who are plainly focused on one or more particular policy outcomes rather than any structural or procedural reform.
Maybe there are particular policy outcomes that would command broad public support (and therefore be entitled to be part of a "Unity" platform), yet are somehow neglected by Republicans and Democrats alike. Maybe, but frankly I doubt it. Let me explain why, and then explain what I think the consequences are for Unity08.
Like the vast majority of people who post here, I am appalled by the level of our political discourse, partly because it's so uncivil and partly because it's so dumbed-down. (I suspect those problems are related.) And also like many who post here, I believe one can characterize our modern political discourse as overly polarized, etc. That conception of the current state of affairs may lead one to suspect that change must come from the center, and that "unity" therefore lies in centrism.
This is where I must differ from many who post here, because I believe that partisan polarization is only half of the story. The other half, at least as important, is that no matter how much the two major parties disagree about particular policy outcomes, they share a bedrock commitment to perpetuating the power of incumbency.
You see it in the way they draw congressional districts, for example. Yes, where Republicans are in charge, they will try to maximize Republican seats, but they will also create very safe seats for Democrats as well.
You see it in their attitudes toward earmarking and other techniques for steering pork barrel spending to their districts. Yes, Republicans make out better than Democrats in the current Congress, but plenty of pork flows everywhere and the consensus in favor of pork transcends party divisions.
You see it in the cynical way the Republicans have treated the term limits issue since 1994. When they were in the minority, they included term limits in the Contract with America. When they became the majority party, they lost interest. Why? Because they were converted to new faith in the power of perpetual incumbency.
You see it in the tax laws. In the early years of the Clinton presidency, Republicans criticized (and even derided) all the gimmicky social engineering that the Democrats proposed to accomplish with the tax code. There is now bipartisan consensus among our elected officials that it is entirely proper for the government to make the amount of tax someone pays dependent upon whether the taxpayer earns his living this way or that way, spends his money on X or Y, and so forth. And both parties are addicted to the campaign contributions that these little tax favors produce so reliably.
You see it in ballot access laws. Whichever party is in charge in your state, it's a very good bet that both major parties enjoy HUGE advantages in terms of how easy it is to get a candidate on the ballot. I looked it up in Maryland one time and it was ridiculous how many signatures an independent candidate had to collect -- a requirement that did not apply to candidates nominated by the Republican or Democratic parties.
We have, therefore, a political landscape in which the two major parties fight each other tooth and nail on almost everything EXCEPT the extent to which elected officials should be insulated from political accountability.
Now, why does all this incumbent protection occur year in and year out for many years on end, at both state and federal levels? Hypothesis A is that this all occurs because a majority of citizens approve of it. If that's true, then not only is there no future for Unity08, there is no need for Unity08. If Hypothesis A is right, then people like myself may be unhappy with the result, but that's life in a democracy (when you're in the minority).
Hypothesis B, though, is that all this incumbent protection occurs because for some reason the will of the majority is being systematically frustrated. Maybe it's voter apathy and low turnout rates. Maybe it's that the game has actually been rigged in certain ways, as my comments about ballot access and redistricting suggested. If that's the case, then there is both a need for Unity08 and a future for Unity08, both as a means of educating and inspiring voters and as a means of spearheading a program of specific structural reforms that put the self back in self-government.
As my comments so far have suggested, you can put me down for Hypothesis B. And for that reason, I have to say that when I see on the blogs or the Shoutbox extended discussions of monetary policy, health care, economic competitiveness, etc., I am filled with despair. I simply do not believe that there are more than 100 people nationwide who think any important consequence flows from the way Ben Franklin used money. I do not believe that the RNC and DNC live in fear that a popular movement may coalesce around the goal of reinvigorating our manufacturing base (which they too will say they support).
In my view, if Unity08 is to have any impact -- particularly as a "movement" rather than a third party -- it must focus on STRUCTURAL, PROCEDURAL REFORMS that will make our elected officials more accountable to us. My list would be (1) Redistricting reform; (2) term limits; (3) fundamental tax reform; and (4) a renewed emphasis on solving state and local problems at the state and local levels instead of pushing everything to Washington. I understand that some people disagree with some or all of these on the merits, and that's fine, but I list them here to illustrate what I mean by a structural or procedural issue. Some have raised the question of voting systems like Condorcet or instant runoff voting, and while I don't know much about them this would obviously also be a structural issue rather than a particular policy outcome. Some people have advocated campaign finance reforms, and while I don't support such measures that is another sort of structural or procedural reform that could conceivably make Unity08 vital and relevant to the national debate.
But stem cells? The war in Iraq? Another installment in the perennial tug-of-war between haves and have-nots? These issues are terribly, terribly important and I fully understand the zeal with which people advance them here. Indeed, hardly anything gets me going like a discussion of Iraq, civil liberties, and the "war on terror" generally, so really, I do understand how people get hooked on particular policy questions. But as I read these threads and see them veering toward disunity, balkanization, obscurity, or worse, I can't help but feel that we have to refocus on the system if we want anything good to come of Unity08.
Can we, as a step toward consensus on a platform, achieve some sort of consensus that we should focus on structural, procedural reforms?
Nothing can be done in the U.S. until we get out of Iraq. Will the Unity 08 platform be anti-war?
Unity08's Defense and Foriegn policy position should not be defined by a myopic view. In addition the situation will likely be very different by 2024 and the right thing to do could be very different.
We need to be committed to defending our nation from those who would do us harm ( extreme wing of Muslim's and others) by making sure we have what we need to win, intelligence, defense, homeland security, diplomatic initiatives. We must also be committed to use those factors.
A reasonable middle ground would be for a new administration to have some time to develop and initiate a plan that is the right thing to do neither blindly pulling out if a more logical transistion is called for and has a reasonable chance of success nor should we say by then IF IT IS EVEN AN ISSUE that we are staying till some vague point or set of conditions are met.
To get to structural procedural reforms, there must be enough political knowledge among people participating in Unity08 to know what it looks like.
To advocate fundamental reforms, one has to understand the history of such reforms within a context that is not too far off from our own context.
Towards that end, I am pleasantly surprised that Time magazine has featured this week Theodore Roosevelt and in a series of informative articles laid out the background as to why this President should be regarded so highly, why he is up there on Mount Rushmore, and why we should study his unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency in 1912 as a 3rd party candidate for the lessons his progressive program has to teach us today.
If you want to talk about fixing our grid locked, corrupt political situation, our bought and sold political process, take a look at a man who did something real about it in his time.
It is our lack of knowledge about his time and about TR himself and his attempts to fix things that holds us all back in trying something similar today, for our problems are not so very different from those TR tried to address.
I will add that Time saw fit to print a “point of view” piece by Karl Rove – something that both amuses and makes me wince to see how Rove, a representative of just about everything TR opposed, spins TR in his grave.
Here is a quick guide to what Time has done this week.
Time article on TR and his reforms for economic justice:
1. America's business élite was wary of Roosevelt from the start. He turned out to be the first President to aggressively use the powers of government to set rules for the headlong U.S. economy and the men he called "malefactors of great wealth."”
See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207811,00.html
Time article on TR’s Bullmoose 3rd party bid for the Presidency in 1912:
2. When Theodore Roosevelt challenged William Howard Taft for the Republican presidential nomination in 1912, few cheered. Enemies accused him of monumental egotism, and most admirers, foreseeing his defeat, were worried that posterity would frown on his quest for an unprecedented third term. But as Roosevelt saw it, he had to involve himself. He had left the White House in 1909 with the expectation that Taft, his good friend and chosen successor, would continue on the progressive course set by the Roosevelt Administration. Instead, Taft had filled his Cabinet with corporate lawyers, bungled a chance to overhaul an antiquated tariff that enriched manufacturers at consumers' expense and undermined Roosevelt's farsighted environmentalism. Taft means well, Roosevelt would say, "but he means well feebly."
3. T.R.'s campaign would not succeed, but the ideals that he and his Bull Moose Party enunciated in 1912 would resonate in American political life for decades. They still do. They shaped much of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and influenced domestic policy until the 1980s, when the Reagan Revolution began dismantling social programs. Even now, echoes of that campaign can be heard in debates on what government should do for citizens and how to make it more accountable.
4. TR’s 3rd party was officially called The National Progressive Party, but was popularly known as the Bullmoose Party. The Time article says: “But who were the Progressives? Although Republicans of the day cast the Progressives as radicals, in truth they were teachers and lawyers, farmers and small-town folk, urban reformers of every ilk, crusaders for peace and women's suffrage, champions of the little guy.
5. They were less a movement than a catch basin for civic-minded men and women impatient with politics as usual but a bit frightened of Eugene V. Debs and his Socialist Party. While many Progressives could not see past their pet causes, T.R. managed to bring them together in a big tent held aloft by the idea that the government, which ought to serve the people, had been hijacked by special interests. "To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day," the Progressive platform declared.
6. In favor of a strong Federal Government, the Progressive platform was so far ahead of its time on many points (Social Security and the minimum wage, for example) that it would take a generation and another Roosevelt, T.R.'s fifth cousin Franklin, to bring them into being.
7. In hopes of protecting the investing public from swindlers, the Progressives called for federal regulation of stock offerings and fuller disclosure of corporate financial transactions, ideas that found their way into the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934.
8. During his presidency, a time when corporations were growing ever larger, Roosevelt operated on the principle that the Federal Government was the only institution strong enough to combat their Darwinian tendency to crush competitors and maximize profits by keeping wages low and prices high. In 1912 he was even more adamant.
10. What kind of a man was TR, in reality? Imagine this, if you can: “In Milwaukee, Wis., on Oct. 14, [1912] as he stood in an open car to salute a cheering crowd, a man a few feet away drew a revolver and fired, hitting Roosevelt in the chest and knocking him back into the car seat. Three Presidents had been assassinated in T.R.'s lifetime, and he had long ago prepared himself for such a moment. He put his fingers to his lips, saw that he was not bleeding from the mouth and concluded that the bullet had not perforated a lung. The bullet, slowed by the contents of his breast pocket--a steel eyeglass case and a copy of the speech he was about to give--had lodged in a rib. He insisted on proceeding to an auditorium where a crowd of 10,000 was waiting for him. In full command of his political instincts, he showed the audience his bloodstained shirt and said, "I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose." Roosevelt spoke for 90 minutes, then consented to go to a hospital.
11. T.R.'s 1912 campaign still quickens the pulse, in part because his foresight on social policy proved to be 20/20 but even more because he was that rare person able to see past the corruption and mediocrity of his time. Theodore Roosevelt understood what a government devoted to its citizens might achieve, and he got the country talking as seriously as it ever has about what it wanted to be.
See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207791,00.html
Seneca writes:
"We should tax the rich -- the $1 million a year crowd -- at a rate that fairly makes their contribution proportionate to their income and meet the requirements of the public interest, be it education, transportation or our crumbling sewage treatment infrastructure. Why? because the nature of the "truly swollen" fortune, in TR's terms, makes it fundamentally different from a family's savings or their investments.
"We are talking about wealth so great as to move mountains - like literally cutting the tops of them off and throwing the rocks into the valleys below ruining the landscape forever for future generations of Americans.This kind of wealth lays waste throughout our country, throwing people out of work, distorting our media, polluting the very fabric of our society."
Now, Mr. Seneca, let us agree "in writing":
1. The poor should NOT be taxed.
2. In years of high, low and no income taxes poverty persisted. Sure, some periods saw a true depression -- others saw happier times. But only FDR's Second Bill of Rights addresses the problem that we should recognize: with modern science, technology, industry and agriculture, a nation can afford to end poverty and want nearly overnight -- if it were to finance that Second Bill.
3. WW II is not a side issue or a strange interlude: its method of "printing money-creating Treasury bonds -- that did not borrow money or pay interest -- but acted the same as silver certificates without mentioning silver or Lincoln's greenbacks without using the names", is proof that we could do in war today what Seneca and Gelles want done.
4. Personal income that is taxed could be as well saved -- with the same favorable effect of lowering demand and controlling price.
5. Accordingly, the rich should not be personally taxed at all. This no-tax idea is also to keep the rich from financing Reagan-like attacks on government.
6. Government of the people, by the people and for the people, is all that stands between the powerlessness of U08 and all other talk and creating a civilization that does not stink.
7. The indictment of polluting corporations that move mountains of shit to bury our hopes for clean land, water and air, is another matter. Taxing rich corporations is not that easy -- their lawyers and accountants have in 40 years shifted a lot of their taxes on to the shoulders of others.
8. Regulating industry, mining, agricluture, etc., (corporate or not) is certainly necessary -- and TR and FDR and all governments have done some regulating and some enforcement. We must learn to be more effective.
9. I think one help might be partnering with corporations rather than fighting with them: that's how we got to the moon and back, did the Manhattan project and the Marshall Plan, and, to a major degree, outproduced the Marxist nations who never learned to partner if they could silence you instead.
10. The issue that remains between Seneca and Gelles is the practicality today of Lincoln's and FDR's debtless-fiat money. In the economics profession, the functional finance crowd (where I stand) are tiny -- almost all, including China, are debt and taxes types that tolerate poverty and unemployment because they refuse to learn what WW II taught so well.
--- end Seneca Gelles compact ---
China has copied our central bank almost to a "T". They think they want empire more than utopia.
Rivalry and competitive spirits cut it, and Marxists and Smithians join in mortal combat for no good end.
The only place today, that does what we must do, is Guernsey and Jersey -- the Channel Islands, protected by Queen Elisabeth, situated off the coast of France.
The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri - Kansas City, is the best American source for intelligence on this issue.
Perhaps Mr. Seneca, my partner in do-gooder plitics, will read on their site of Abba Lerner, and what taxes are really for.
Lerner was author of functional finance.
Like Felix Cohen and functional law, (and all of modern medicine,industry, mining and agriculture,) the thoughts of Lerner and Cohen (and me) are based on observation of results to confirm that what you want to do may work.
You may remember this idea -- it is what science is all about.
http://unity08ws.wikispaces.com
http://www.tiea.us
John Gelles
Human rights and how to pay for them are key to a livable world.
It is wrong to allow foreign interests to own stocks and property in this nation... like it is wrong to employ slaves regardless of where they are located! For it is the propoganda radio and television has brought that has sold us on words like free trade, oil crisis, and a war on terror which in reality is an exodus of our jobs, modern slavery, exansionism over others, and a religios war - none of which is anything new as I'm sure the founding fathers would clearify this for us... for more www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Very well said - and while I'm not sure I agree on all the structural points - I certainly agree on the spirit and direction of your message.
Excellent. I think you've really nailed it.
After we citizenize 20 million catholic mexican illegles, we can expect more of this type of activity. Published in Vatican magazine today.
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.
The founders would stop congress from combining issues in legislation to create gridlock! Immigration laws and the wall at the border are two different laws to consider, neither should prevent the either! Like drilling in the Southwest for oil is a different issue than offshore drilling, combined legislation to prevent either and continue dependency on foreign interests who are funding and driving policy that creates gridlock to stop reform! So when legislation finds gridlock then it must be stripped or divided as required, for legislation shoud be specific and clear to the people and contain no pork or legislation to create gridlock or bribe into law..... www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
The will is among the people to rally around a common cause to bring unity. I say there is no common policy except one, policy that we must rally around or fail... I say this not because it is our only common thread but because it is the foundation for all reforms needed today, it's just a matter of what degree. And is the BIG ONE to carry us all the way in 08! The application of technology to replace process, preserving the system the founders put in place. Burn down the schoolhouse, DMV, and government buildings and replace them with video conferencing systems! Not literally, but as a platform to unite America... lets put technology on the front line as our common platform? www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
While I agree for the most part that its virtually impossible to know what our Founding Fathers would think,I believe the state we are in today is a direct result of the lack of prudence that has progressively deteriorated year after year. We as a nation of people dedicated to liberty and the pursuit of freedom, have to take a proactive role and genuine interest in the history of this nation and educate ourselves. There are patterns that emerge, and by studying the ideas and writings of former Presidents and leaders, one can understand the thought process of our Founding Fathers. Armed with this information, one can then formulate a clear vision and direction in which to concentrate our efforts. While we can't say for certain what our Founding Fathers would think, one simply has to reflect on the sacrifice and risk that each Father delivered when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Essentially signing their own death certificate with anything but a victory over the British. A truly inspirational act, that has unfortunately been lost in the nonsense we have in this country today. Unity08 seems to have captured this idea, and for that I am grateful. Let's do this.
Very well Steve, let us move forward and pick up the flag the fathers handed us along with the revolutionary weapon of today that puts us on a even field of battle with the enemy. It is time for these modern day patriot brothers and sisters amongs us to step forward and walk thru these hall doors with full blown streaming videos that look and feel like the congressional debate the people see on cspan! And when we can update these videos on a daily basis to reflect the feedback we get from the public, then we are demonstrating unification in a modern format the people will understand and respect...We have a window of opportunity to present the first true extreme video based debates in American History in a streaming video format... all sides of the issue able to respond daily to the others, kinda like England does it but with 1 day time delay to think before we speak and with view on demand by the people with direct feedback to the speakers email! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Should the Founding Fathers make a trip to the United States today they would be amazed that their ideas are still being adhered to, even in some small ways. Excited that we have progressed beyond their dreams. Some good actually lots of good. Then some bad. Disappointed that they put their lives on the line to make us the freest country in the world. That we have come apart at the seams as a nation. Yet they would be happy to see Unity 08 as an instrument to bring the people back together. To restore individuals liberties. To make us all equal!