If you’ve never wondered about why our government exists
then perhaps it is time. We are now in a
period of transition; the unanswerable question is what will come from it?
Our founding fathers, in the preamble to the Constitution
said,
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.”
Have we reached a point where these words no longer have
meaning, and have lost their ability to bind us together as a nation? We are at a point where the centrists have
left the stage, and the radicals have chosen riot, rather than debate, as the
means of communication. The
institutions we have historically looked to for our views of the world have
chosen sides and news is replaced by opinion.
On the one side, there are those who would have “the
government” be the nexus of all things.
They display a willingness to surrender their personal freedoms for the
illusions of safety and expert control, placing their trust in a benevolent
leadership. In the process, they would
forsake the traditional institutions of religion, and coopt the educational
system, both of which served in the past to moderate the growth and abuse of
power.
The opposition must take the position of limiting
government and the power it wields, opening it to attack from those who have
come to expect a continuation of government largess, without consequence. Everyone, it seems, loves the idea of paying
no taxes and getting all the benefits of using other people’s money.
The Democratic party has pretty much admitted it stands for
little, or nothing, except to gain power for those who control the party. (Perhaps this has always been true, and now
is now just more apparent.)
The Republican Party, is currently a fractured caricature
of what it once was. It seems apparent they
have no clear and unifying understanding of either the needs of the nation, or
the path to secure those needs. It has
proven itself great at complaining about the abuses of power by their
opponents, but as we have seen, when it comes to actually legislating they have
neither plan, nor the leadership to secure the “Blessings of Liberty” so
desired by our founders.
Adding to the challenges of the traditional opposing
political parties is the advent of a populist President who speaks to the
concerns and fears of the average middle-aged working man and woman. The very people the political elite have cast
aside as they talk among themselves about the grand future of their parties and
the utopia they will create.
Another element muddying the waters of political discourse
is the rise of the religious right. A growing
force since the 1970’s. It has become
almost completely aligned with the Republican Party as the Democratic National
Committee has moved further and further from its traditional “everyman”
approach.
From this shift left comes the continuing attacks on what
many centrists view as simple cultural norms, like the traditional holidays, but
what the non- traditional religious and atheists view as state endorsement of a
religion. The courts have sided with
their concerns often enough to provide the foundation for the religious
activist’s belief the churches must engage politically if they are to
survive.
These almost daily legal battles ultimately end up in the
legislatures as the politicians align with what they believe to be their most
supportive constituents. Oft times
writing laws that are ill advised, or even counterproductive.
It has become apparent to me, and perhaps others, the
political parties increasingly fail at providing the common people with a
viable representative government. Each
party is bought and paid for by to serve their sponsors interests. Couple this with the obvious self-interest for
power and wealth on the part of the politicians themselves, and we have the
perfect condition for institutional corruption.
One has only to look at the alumni of the Office of President, or the
wealth accumulation of career politicians in Congress to see the obvious truth
of this assertion.
We see in the class structure of our nation an increasing divide,
where the traditional ideals of hard work, and ambition will no longer enable
someone to migrate from the poor, to the middle class, or to the wealthy as was
the promise of the past. The question no
one seems to consider is was that a reality, or just an illusion used to foster
a unity of purpose? I think the answer
should be obvious. The wealthy have
always made up the 1%, but the ability to live comfortably and move from abject
poverty was a real possibility for those who had the ambition, drive, and
courage to seek change.
The Democrats have, for at least the past 10 years, talked
about the wealth of the 1% and the poverty of the poorest, as if being wealthy
is bad, and the poor are always victims of an unfair system who have no control
over their status. Remarkably the same
time the Democratic politicians are blaming the rich; they have their hands out
for campaign contributions while writing legislation that will affect those
they are soliciting funds from. What is
the expectation of all those who contribute?
Is it just a magnanimous and humanitarian concern?
The Republicans talk
about reducing taxes, while giving lip service to the idea of reducing government,
and like the Democrats they too have their hands out while blaming big
government and writing legislation that will benefit the wealthy. How important is the idea of reducing taxes
for the growing percentage of Americans who pay no taxes? With Republican control of the Congress they
could have reduced the deficit through spending reductions on non-entitlement
programs, but a Representative or Senator is elected to bring home the bacon
(or pork) so why on earth would either party ever cut funding. Especially now that they have convinced us
that just slowing the growth of a program is called a cut. Recently, my Representative claimed with all
sincerity the House had passed the 2018 budget that would balance the budget in
only 10 years. Hmm, where have I heard
that before? With nine more budgets to
pass, four more elections to hold, and an unknown global future I’m guessing in
9 years he will be claiming similar success is only 10 years away.
Neither party talks very much about the decay of the
American dream where initiative is rewarded and a family has the opportunity to
thrive and prosper without fear of a bank taking their home, or an employer
laying them off to hire new workers at the minimum wage. One party wants to open our borders to all,
when we don’t have employment for those who are citizens, while the other wants
to seal to border to those they view as threats. As in most things these days, neither party
wants to concede an inch and find reasonable balance to national employment,
security, and immigration.
Sorry, I got a little side tracked there. Let’s get back to talking about the meaning
of the Preamble.
So, I come to the two questions, how do we understand the
terms justice, domestic
tranquility, common defense, and general welfare, and
what is the role we expect of our government?
Fueled by a myopic media we, as a nation, seem increasingly unable to
come to agreement over what the they should mean and what ideal they should
represent.
Justice – at our founding, the original colonies had all
experienced the rule of English law, where there was one set of expectations
for the royalty and another for the commoner.
They had also imported, as their inheritance, the concept of “common
law” as adjusted to the conditions of the colonies. But as James Stoner[i]
discusses in his commentary we have twisted the meaning of common law, and just
as we seem to be twisting the meaning of common justice. As proponents of “natural law” where the
rights of the people come not from the state, but from a higher power (or
nature if you prefer), then the ideal of equal justice for all would be
foundational in their beliefs and would serve as a safeguard for the abuse of
the state. This was clearly their intent
in the establishment of the checks and balances provided by organizing the
government into three independent but interrelated branches. Unfortunately, the execution of justice is
left to us as a society, along with all our bias and hatred. We may choose men and women who promise
fairness to judge the law, but we see often they fall short when it comes to
the having the wisdom of Solomon. Slowly, perhaps imperceptibly at first, the
common expectation of equal justice is eroded until one day we awake to find
the political class is judged with a standard that differs from those who are
not politically connected. We are now at
that point as we see with both the current and past administrations. We are at a time where regardless of the
public evidence of corruption a politically connected candidate will not be
prosecuted, or despite a lack of hard evidence another will be continuously
vilified, leaving the average man or woman to question the standards of justice
this nation would have. I’ve purposely
left the issue of race and justice out of this paragraph for that begs for a
much larger discussion. Can a minority
race receive equal treatment under the law? I am sure everyone has their own
answer to that question, but the simple fact there are multiple answers would
suggest in the larger sense a loss of faith in the underlying principle of
equal justice.
Domestic Tranquility, what the heck is that? Is it the same thing as “Happy wife, happy
life?” Well it kind of is. When the revolution ended, we established the
Confederation of States, where the individual colonies maintained a great deal
of autonomy. The federal government
(much like the UN of today) had no real means to ensure the states cooperated
with each other beyond brokering consensus.
We also had no means of quelling a resurrection should one occur. These failures in our first government
weighed heavily into the debates and concerns of the constitutional convention
and led to the provisions within the constitution that placed limits on the
states and gave the President and Congress the ability to quell rebellion (e.g.
the Whisky Rebellion[ii])
Providing for the Common Defense. This is, at least in my opinion, the simplest
of the purposes of government. Sovereignty
is an interesting concept. Throughout
our history there have been very few years when our sovereignty has not been
challenged by one group or another.
Without the means to defend ourselves would we exist today as an
independent nation? We’ve fought two
wars with the English regarding our rights to exist, then there were the
Barbary pirates who sought tribute and ransom, but as often as not we’ve used
our military to achieve the political will of the day. For example, when we annexed Texas and Mexico
took umbrage, or when Commodore Perry sailed into Tokyo Bay. In neither case was the employment of the
military narrowly defined as “defensive.”
Today, our sovereignty is challenged by Islamic terrorism, and the
defense of our nation is addressed by the Departments of Defense, Homeland
Security, Justice, and State, as well as the CIA.
Finally, we come to that catch all phrase, promoting the
General Welfare. I share the views of
Adam J. Bulava,[iii]
writing in his blog “The Government Teacher” when he discusses the framers
intent, and the conflict between unlimited and limited government. He notes its origins lie in the classic
philosophy, regarding putting the common good ahead of the desires of special
interests. Was it the framers intent
that this phrase justifies an unlimited expanse of government? There is sufficient other indication in the
Constitution and the Federalist papers to lay to rest the idea the framers ever
imagined Government as having unlimited power.
So, we come to today.
As the power of the government expands and the desires of the special
interests are cried out with increasing demands and authority to that
government, the question remains “What do we expect of our government?”
Clearly, we are willing to overlook the sins of those we
favor, while we condemn those we dislike.
The Democratic candidate’s collusion, or the Republican President’s
collusion are two sides of the same coin, yet we hear in the media completely
different levels of acceptance or tolerance.
Clearly the needs of the general population are given little
consideration by the public advocates who gain so much air time in the various
media outlets.
To turn John F. Kennedy’s phrase around, ask not what you can do for your government,
ask what your government is doing to you. If we are to survive we must find a way to
move from the extremes, and this cannot happen if we, the average citizen,
support only the extreme positions our favored political party is moving to.
No comments:
Post a Comment