Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIs Government 'Us' or is It 'Them'?
From the very beginning of our national history, Americans have been arguing about the proper role of government. Put succinctly, the dispute is between those who regard government as "them" and those who see it as "us."
Our two founding documents embody the tension in its classical form. The Declaration of Independence locates sovereignty in the individual citizen, who possesses the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson so lyrically put it, and the power of government is described as an alien force that must be put on the permanent defensive.
The Constitution enshrines "the people" as the sovereign agent, with a Bill of Rights that defines a protected region where government cannot intrude, but otherwise identifies a collective interest best managed by a federal government empowered to make decisions for the society as a whole.
All of U.S. political history can be understood as a perpetual debate between these two competing perspectives, symbolized at the start in the clash between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.
The Jeffersonian position, with its emphasis on a minimalist government, prevailed throughout the 19th century and imprinted itself on the DNA of American culture as a quasi-sacred political creed.
By the start of the 20th century, as the United States became a more densely populated, ethnically diverse society with an industrial economy dominated by large corporations, the Jeffersonian perspective grew increasingly anachronistic. It became abundantly clear that government power was necessary to regulate the swoonish swings of the marketplace, provide a safety net for poor and elderly citizens, and protect the environment. Thus the Federal Reserve Board, Social Security, Medicare and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But despite these projections of the Hamiltonian ethos, which presumes that there is a collective public interest that only government can serve, the Jeffersonian ethos remains a potent force and not just in the right wing of the Republican Party. It colors the conversation about all the major domestic problems facing the Obama administration in ways that stigmatize as socialistic what we might ironically describe as the self-evident solutions.
In the health care debate, for example, there is a national consensus that we have a broken and bloated system. But instead of replacing it with the kind of single-payer government-run system adopted by most of the developed countries on the planet, that option is ruled out of order at the start of the debate. As a result, the best we can hope for is modest reform of an inherently flawed and expensive system.
To take another example, in the ongoing banking crisis, the removal of government regulations permitted major banks to assume unconscionable amounts of debt, much of it in the form of toxic investments that still remain on the books. It has been obvious that the banks needed to be temporarily nationalized to force them to purge bad debts from their portfolios.
But fear that the stock market would interpret this course as creeping socialism has prevented such straightforward action. So we are still waiting for many of the same self-described financial wizards who created our fiscal mess to get us the rest of the way out of it.
Our response to global warming is likely to meet the same fate. If there was ever a problem that demanded a coherent public response by government in the "us" mode, the threat to life on Earth as we know it would seem to be it. But "cap-and-trade" legislation, designed to reduce carbon in the atmosphere through government-created emission "allowances" that can be traded for money, is currently on life support in Congress, another victim of the deep-seated aversion to Washington's intrusion in the marketplace.
For much of our history, the Jeffersonian hostility to an energetic federal government served us well. But with the end of the frontier and the shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy, the expanding role of government in protecting and assuring our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" has become utterly essential.
All the major problems now befuddling us -- the destructive excesses of finance capitalism, a profit-based health-care system, an increasingly contaminated atmosphere -- are only soluble if we regard government as the chosen representative of our collective interests as a people and a nation.
No less an American hero than George Washington put it rather defiantly in 1785: "We are either a united people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation. ... If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."
And even Jefferson acknowledged that his anti-government vision would become irrelevant once we ceased being an agricultural society and that future generations -- meaning us -- would at some point need to throw off what he called "the dead hand of the past."
65 Comments so far
Show AllDafoe
Ellis takes his history from school books and holywood, the Declaration of Independance is just that neither here nor there. The republic and its various "committees of public safety" lacked only the guillotine to make life more miserable for about a third of the inhabitants who were driven off to other parts, had their land and holdings confiscated and on it has gone ever since. The constitution is heavy on property rights and damned light on human rights witness the Negroes and the Indians in the past 200 years. Sorry but one hears so much bullshit passing off as history it offends ones sensiibility, its sanitized to the point of being meaningless.
As an aside but germain to that sanitized history etc., there is a group of citizens and companies who when Cuba becomes less socialist will want their land back, when that happens one hopes descendants of the ones who were driven off during the revolution will stake a claim for the recovery of their property in this nation.
Technically the government is us. Practically, it's in the hands of a ruling elite. They own Congress and the President. The job of the government is to increase their profits and power.
The "modest" healthcare reform that you are expecting is really a big handout to the health care corporations, insurers and big pharma.
The economic crisis was an opportunity for a segment of the ruling elite (the financial sector) to place the burden of their risky behavior squarely the backs of tax payers and to generate enormous amounts of unearned income.
The health care crisis is an opportunity for another sector to shift more of the health care burden onto the backs of individuals and tax payers while generatig huge profits for the sector and its major shareholders.
Under the current legislation, the system is likely to continue to have poor outcomes(the US has the worst in the developed world),remain inefficient and very costly.
The Demned must provide at least a public option or lose their base.
.
In the States, approaches to gov't seem to proceed from a century or so of propaganda that obscures relationship between government and property.
The following, cribbed from someone else's model, gives a little better picture than the usual "left | right" or "liberal | conservative."
_________________________________________________________________
...........................+COERCION ........................
|+SHARING.......................................... +OWNERSHIP
|.... Castro ............................... Hitler, Cheney
|
|
|
|
|
|.... Ghandi / social-anarchist .................. Ron Paul
|
.............................+LIBERTY.........................
===============================================================
Of course,
--- Cheneys present themselves as pro-liberty
--- Castros present themselves as populist because pro-coop
--- The libertarians fear that cooperation will invite coercion.
--- The anarchists feel that ownership constitutes coercion.
Very roughly, coercive cooperative-ism tends to push the Ron Pauls towards the Cheneys and Reagans; the Cheneys and Hitlers tend to push the anarchists towards Castro and Lenin.
The Cheneys tend to feel that they would love to be cooperative and uncoercive, but that they live in a hard world in which little or no altruism exists and in which that which does exist goes unrequited.
The Castros would love to have their cooperation without coercion, but feel that because the propertied resist sharing, they must coerce to distribute goods and services.
The RPaul and Ayn Rand libertarians also suppose that little altruism exists, but that desire for profit will create more benefits that cooperative efforts, either because of the risks of coercion in cooperation or because they regard self-interest as a superior motivator anyway.
Decent living conditions for humans involve cooperative, low-coercion environments. All human well-being depends on approaching such an environment. However, none of the above cynicisms and fears are totally unfounded. Cooperative, low-tech societies have been slaughtered regurlarly by colonizers. Communes get destroyed by violence and popular movements pushed into coercive violence by needs for defense.
The wholesale failure of the Democratic Party to satisfy most of their base on any major issue may make '10 and'12 big 3rd party years.
One way a 3rd Party could arise in the States would be a provisional coalition between progressive and libertarian elements, which have considerable things in common.
Of course, there's quite a gap to close.
To accomplish this, progressives would need some cooperative organization or organizations sufficiently estranged from national government to allay libertarian fears of government coercion.
Alternatively, libertarians would need some alternate form of cooperative incorporation to replace the despotism of "corporation," as that entity exists.
I submit that cooperatives, unions, and some religious organizations that provide for members and charities through tithing may provide early models.
How might these be refined?
The author of this piece, Joseph Ellis, is dead wrong when he asserts:
"The Declaration of Independence locates sovereignty in the individual citizen, who possesses the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as Thomas Jefferson so lyrically put it, and the power of government is described as an alien force that must be put on the permanent defensive."
IN FACT, the Declaration of Independence states that "governments are instituted among men" to "secure" our "inalienable rights," which include "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Declaration is speaking of democratic governments such as ours, not dictatorships.
In other words, government is absolutely necessary, because it is only through government that we secure our inalienable rights. Therefore government is NOT viewed as an "alien force" at all.
Without government, our rights can be taken from us, and we have seen this happen in our lifetime as corporations have become powerful enough to weaken our own government's ability to secure our rights. Jefferson could not have foreseen the rise of multinational corporate power, but if he were here today, he would be 100% behind our efforts to use our democratically elected government to reclaim our inalienable rights from the clutches of these unelected non-governmental bodies.
It’s clear that there is great economic and environmental injustice in the U.S.
Most of the comments on CD point out these injustices and lament their effects.
But the big question in my mind is how can we who are not rich or powerful make a significant difference.
And the best answer I can come up with is the following:
1. Reach out to as many people as possible, in whatever way works. For us at the Grassroots Coalition, we contact people in churches and colleges and high schools.
2. We’re starting this in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states.
3. Focus on what they care about. Most people are not much into altruism. So now we are appealing to people on the basis of economic self-interest.
4. Which means that we are seeking out people who are a) unemployed, 2) underemployed, 3) employed but seriously worried about their economic future. More than half the population.
5. We are inviting them to form into democratically-run worker-owned cooperatives. Modeled on the highly successful network of cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain.
6. Starting first by selling products that are made in an economically and environmentally just manner. Buying them wholesale and selling them retail
7. Using the profit to a) pay themselves and 2) accumulate until there is enough to start manufacturing.
We hope to grow and grow and thereby acquire economic and political power which we use to transform society.
If this interests you, contact John Conner at grassroots1@pa.net
Man do I ever soooooo not want to hear about jefferson or the fathers.
to them "the people" did NOT mean women. Or Africans. Or Native Americans. Or working people.
it meant ONLY propertied white men.
stop reading the founders scribbles as holy writ.
stop reading holy writ as holy writ.
we need to start over.
Another country is possible.
let's see if we can find it somewhere.
Actually they were above all tax evaders, if you'll take the Crown's point of view.
1) They were not alone in their assessment of who was or was not of value. Indeed their racism and misogyny didn't spring up spontaneously once they landed on these shores, but were in the baggage they brought with them from their European homelands.
2) Their intentions really don't matter. Because whatever their motivations for forming this government, it has resulted in a political concept that has created a country that has done much good in addition to challenging the racism and prejudices of the past.
3) Please keep us posted on that "other" country.
An Alternative to Capitalism?
The following link, takes you to a "utopian" article, entitled "Home of the Brave?" which I wrote and appeared in the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.
Jonathan Swift
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it.
Alexander Woollcott
If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con' what is the opposite of 'progress'?
Paul Harvey
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck
Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.
William Penn
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
Denis Diderot
The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
Woodrow Wilson
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.
Karl Marx
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.
Will Rogers
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."
To represent and repress them?! Karl's phrasing could have been better.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
General Washington knew of what he spoke because he often WAS the government. Just ask the Iroquois in the Seneca area in Pennsylvania and New York. There is still an area they call the "burn out". Peach orchards, corn fields, hay, vegetables and villages all up in smoke. The father of our country was a murderer. No, it wasn't war. It was pillage. Our founding fathers had a plan and George Washington was vigorously carrying it out. They wanted a homogenous society from sea to sea. Well they got it but now the corporations own it.
We made us into them. Now them needs us to maintain their themness. Them now sees themselves as separate from us and is addicted to the power of them. Us secretly wants to become them and use that power to return them back into us.
Excellent comment. You are wrong. I do not want to be them. I'd rather die. And I would probably have to die to resist the temptation to become them.
"A man ain't nothing but a man"
"Man is a thing that must be surpassed"----Nietcsche
"If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending it."
Things the Founding Fathers didn't count on:
Forbes 500 billionaire list;
Two controlling political parties that agree 95% of the time (though sometimes they act the farce of being 'opposing');
The ability to tell lies to millions of Americans repeatedly across all media platforms 24/7/365;
A mass epidemic of Greedism;
A citizenry that has raised acting the farce - which today, we call denial of the reality right in front of your face - to an art form.
Thomas Jefferson Was Right and Still IS Right!
Hamilton and His Idea of Central Banking and Debt - DEBT - Is what is and has and will continue to DESTROY this country and take the world down with it!
Andrew Jackson got rid of the Second Central Bank of the US and the country began to Prosper again.
When the "federal" reserve was created, we than went into a GREAT DEPRESSION - and Two WORLD WARS -
- We are Currently in the Second Great Depression and a Third World War is lurking its ugly head right around the corner, thanks to the WAR Mongers in the White House and Israel.
You want Better Healthcare in this Country?! End the (not so Federal) Federal Reserve and End the ILLEGAL Income Tax (which "coincidentally" was created the same year as the "federal" reserve - do your Homework people - read the Creature from Jeckyll Island or google FIAT EMPIRE)
Our income tax is nothing but an ILLEGAL Tax being used to ONLY Pay off and UNPAYABLE Debt to the "federal" reserve - you are paying interest on your own damn money - wake up you friggin monkeys ! (google America: Freedom to Fascism)
Stop the Spending of BILLIONS upon BILLIONS a MONTH fighting ILLEGAL WARS in the Middle East KILLING INNOCENT Children, Women and Men in the Middle East!
STOP Supporting Israel!
And Stop Stealing Money from Our Paychecks via an ILLEGAL Income Tax and via an invisible Tax called INFLATION - Which is NOT created by RISING Prices - INFLATION is Created by the Inflating of the Money Supply (aka the "fed" printing money out of thin air)
If we Stopped all this NANNY State Government and went back to a Jeffersonian / Libertarian type Government as our Founders iNtended, then EVERY American with a Job (not too many now thanks to Obama) but Americans would be able to AFFORD Their Own Health Insurance!
Wake Up Before It's Too Late!
Ron Paul for President 2012
You are totally wrong about the legality of taxation. Levying taxes on a national basis was one of the arguments for justifying the Constitutional Coup of 1787. You are also greatly mistaken about Jackson and the 2nd US Bank, and trying to make a hero out of a genocidal maniac.
The IRS and INCOME TAX was CREATED In 1913 - the SAME year as the FEDERAL RESERVE.
The constitution Does say taxes - BUT NOT AN INCOME TAX - Again, that DID NOT EXIST Until 1913, less than a hundred years ago!
Our income tax is used to pay off a debt CREATED BY THE FED - to the FED - Interest on our OWN Money
Why Don't you go do some research before you tell me I am wrong - and Maybe go READ your Constitution again - if you even own one!
Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution, states:
CONGRESS Shall have the Power to Lay and Collect Taxes, ...
Says NOTHING ABout an IRS or NOTHING ABout An Income TAX - That IS ALL Fairly New, again, created in 1913, less than 100 years ago!
And I am Absolutely 100% Correct about Andrew Jackson defeating a Second Central Bank - Again go do your research before opening your pie hole and spewing LIES!
People, GOOGLE; Fiat Empire or Google The MONEY MASTERS - Go to Libraries and Read about this - And You Will See I am Telling you FACTS also for the IRS/Income Tax GOOGLE a Film titled America:Freedom to Fascism
Watch it, and Learn the TRUTH
Article 1, Section 8, " The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises,..." gives all the power needed by Congress to propose ANY form of taxation it pleases.
One of the primary reasons for the unlawful overthrow of the Artcles of Confederation is noted in Article 6: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." This is the assumption of the National Debt, which was done to give the wealthy a "stake in the country."
The reason for the 16th Amendment--"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration"--is provided for by citing the rest of the sentence from Article 1, Section 8, quoted above: "... but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
Congress can legislate into existence any agency, such as the IRS, and place it under jurisdiction of the Executive, with oversite seen by a related congressional committee(s). This is what was done with the act that formed the IRS. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the income tax or the IRS. Now you may protest that our taxes ought not to support war crimes and atrocities and refuse to pay them as I and many others do. Nor do I dispute Jackson's refusal to renew the bank's charter; rather, I dispute that its demise caused the country to "Prosper again." As for taxes not being seen as an impost on income, you must be insane to even suggest that. How else can one pay any tax if not from one's income?
enemyartistkristofeR August 17th, 2009 5:50 pm..............Personally, I cannot disagree with a thing you have said. For myself, it's old news.
But, the personal insults serve no purpose other than turning off someone who might be interested in what you have to say. I understand the frustration, but pushing away the folks that might have something to learn is just working against your intention.
Saying someone is wrong is simply a statement that one may have their facts incorrect. Calling someone a liar is a personal attack. Everyone makes misteakes.
I still maintain that the reason for the popular disenchantment expressed here is the simple fact that we citizens, by virtue of the formal structure of our so-called 'system' must delegate our political authority to various bodies who actually exercise it.
It is literally correct that 'they' decide, 'we' do not act on our own behalf. I see no remedy for this alienation until we take the big step forward and stop the delegating. Electing someone to govern you is fundamentally different than governing yourself, no two ways about it.
As long as 'they' are empowered, 'they' will continue to act in their own narrow self-interest and 'we' will suffer for it. The present moment is as good an argument for direct democracy as I can think of; 'they' know damn good and well what 'we' want and blithely ignore it. An employee who did that would be canned forthwith, and rightly so. Whatever else it may mean, 'represent' most surely does not mean defying the expressed will of the citizenry.
It's all very well for us to impugn the Democrats for their lack of will, but it's hypocritical to do so while we make no visible effort to get tough ourselves. I for one am getting very tired of this "Let's you and him fight" motif.
You really want to go all the way from the current set-up to direct democracy without passing through any truly representative democracy (i.e., representative of human as opposed to corporate interests) en route?
Given the long developmental history of U.S. popular culture, that sounds to me like a dangerous leap without some major deprogramming and (re-)education first. Admittedly, on the other hand, the shallowness and short attention span could produce some very interesting results to say the least.
Actually, we have some evidence in the historical record that ordinary people are quite good at direct self-government. The evidence is only in little patches that occurred when formal government broke down, but the interesting part is the way that people self-organised quickly and life went on in a way that must have made the ruling class *extremely* nervous. They certainly re-took control just as fast as they could move.
If we want to be dismissive, we can claim that the episodes represent a temporary "Spirit of the Blitz" operating each time, but there's nothing in the record to support such an interpretation - we'd be more easily justified in interpreting it as a natural ability to self-govern, since in everyday life we self-govern 99.99% of the time.
I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's self-governing mass wisdom of a dumbed down populace that I wonder about, not inate ability of the human species per se.
Government by corporate lobby is them against us, sucking up our tax dollars, using them against us, playing shell games with our investments, shipping our jobs away, continuously attacking our time honored social safety nets. In the game of them against us, Bush was one of them, and Obama is one of them. Government by and for the people is us for us, but it isn't that way, at least not at the moment, not for some time.
Them against us is global now, as they place their puppets in governments around the world, from the least oppressive to the most totalitarian, to use "engagement", the term of corporate public relations consultants and lobbyists, for access to the world's pre-muzzled labor forces.
The natives sold Manhattan for a few beads because they took the white man for a fool. They knew the land, just as the water and air belonged to every species.
The white man is still acting the fool but his foolishness is far more destructive.
Interesting perspective. The wages of sin may be death, but the fools seem to be doing quite well for themselves during their mortal lives.
The government is becoming more and more us every day because we continually give ourselves to the gov't. Oh please Obama take care of me and give me everything I need. I am lazy and stupid and can't do anything on my own, I need big government to save my life! i am a fool!
---
Frank
The fact is that on our own we are quite limited in what we can do. On my own I cannot protect myself for corrupt bankers, corrupt insurance companies, etc. This is why we created institutions to which we look for protection. Courts to which we can initiate processes against evil doers. The problem we have now is that these institutions act in the service of those from whom we need protection. The problem isn't government. The problem is corrupt government that acts in the service of the worst parts of society. But, yes, on our own we can do relatively little. So, your sarcasm is misplaced, I think. It makes you look the fool.
A person might have had the grave misfortune of having been born in a country whose entire east coast was a slave depot, before and sometime after its nation-forming revolution. We the people; you the person; a corporation is a person under law as it now stands. Curious, isn't it? If you have enough corporations, then persons become people, and which people then are we referring to? Do I need to govern myself? With respect to using sugar and tobacco, I think so, but these two products were integral parts of the original economy. We could say, "the founding economy."
Hamilton was very much in favor of the the manufacturers, and the manufacturers reject any notion whatsoever of environmental limits.
The view that government is THEM is pathological, if only because government is an essential part of a society. Regarding the government as alien or evil is like regarding one of your bodily organs as alien or evil. It just can't be good for you.
I'm not sure what sort of world the more zealous anti-government types would create for us. Would things really go well if we all joined together in mutual hatred of government? Should government workers wear armbands, because we know they're up to no good?
I think you're a bit off, there. It's not the *view* that's pathological, it's the *fact* that's pathological. Government SHOULD be us, not them. That it isn't (and I think we have more than enough evidence that it isn't) is a massive pathology, and like pathologies of our corporeal bodies, is killing us.
"I'm not sure what sort of world the more zealous anti-government types would create for us. "
I am sure. It is a World without government of, for and by the people. This view wants a return to the way things were before self government and that is a return to feudalism. Hereditorial royal rule over the masses.
We almost went that way in the beginning. Remember that many people wanted George Washington to be our king.
The author is referring to the national government, not state or local. I know many folks who work very hard and very openly at governing in my town and county. When I was a teacher, I was a part of the local government. And for a short period of time at the country's inception, the national government was made up of some of "us"--women and non-whites not being considered wholly human and thus kept apart from governance.
I agree that government is an essential part of society, but it's very clear that the national government is diseased, and has been since 1787. It's my contention that we would all be much better off if the Articles of Confederation were only amended to solve the few problems it had rather than submit to the Constitutional Coup wrought by the so-called Founders. It's very clear why the time period from 1781-1787 isn't covered much at all by US history texts, and not very honestly when it is discussed.
Confederations DO NOT work.
Just see how well the Confederacy worked. Each State worked for its' self and the whole fell.
"It's very clear why the time period from 1781-1787 isn't covered much at all by US history texts, and not very honestly when it is discussed."
But the history is there for all to read.
It is no secret. It is not covered up or concealed. We learned of it in junior high and there are readings of it in the library. The faults are clearly shown.
You sound just like a history book--insinuations but no facts--and a shoveling of the Confederation Period under the rug in hopes no one will look, and the vast majority don't, which is one big reason why we have the mess we have today. You must have failed your junior high history classes.
The idea that we are the government is pathological. That may have been the illusion created in the beginning, but to now believe you have the smallest of input into what happens in this country is at the least unwordly and at the most quite mad.
Mutual hatred? How about a mutual quest for integrity, accountability and justice.
Armbands? For politicians, yes...black ones denoting the country they killed through greed, power and self interest. Government workers should just question their own conscience in supporting an out of control, felonious and corrupt bureauocracy.
One of the most naive and mis-informed authors I have yet to read on CD.
Not necessarily. They also serve who elaborate national mythologies. They are often very well informed and not at all naive.
The "two founding documents" are the Declaration and the Constitution? That is very incorrect. Our first two Founding Documents were the Declaration and the Articles of Confederation--the First Constitution. So the writer doesn't even know what he's writing about. The "enactment" of the second constitution was really a Coup in that it overthrew the existing form of government--which had NO executive, and was far more democratic--and replaced it with an aristocratic form of government that ensured the insulation of the governors from the governed. Thus, government is THEM, not US. Our own history, when looked at properly, proves it so. I wonder what else he left out of his book, or what schooling he got to be so ignorant of US history.
karlof1 -
The Articles of the Confederation not only had no executive. It also lacked a Bill of Rights. Those who drafted the Constitution (with cumbersome, elaborate checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches calculated to checkmate one another so that centralized federal power remained diffuse) could never have gotten the new Constitution ratified without adding the Bill of Rights. This was scarcely an "afterthought", as some casually maintain.
What is bizarre about the content of the Bill of Rights - a major ideological victory for the Jeffersonians over the Hamiltonians - is the laundry list of special interests that it appealed to.
There was the religious community and the anti-clerics, the pamphleteer press, frontier mentality citizen militia/firearms fans, and private property owners. Predictable enough. But what was the constituency for banning unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel and unusual punishment, self-incrimination, excessive bail and excessive fines? Who, other than do good elitist liberals, gave a shit about the right to a speedy and public trial, confrontation of one's accusers, the assistance of legal counsel, and the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions and civil cases when more than $20 was at stake?
The answer appears to be veterans - veterans of the Continental army who had a right to vote in 1789, even though many weren't owners of real property. Folks who had been on the receiving end of the British criminal justice system cared about things like the right to pretrial release on bail, a fair day in court, and barbaric forms of interrogation and post-conviction punishment. You know - the immigrant classes who came over to the colonies in steerage, often as indentured servants, perhaps one step ahead of the law. They cared.
I don't really think it's accurate to say the Articles of the Confederation were "far more democratic" than the Constitution with a Bill of Rights added, nor that the end product was designed to create "an aristocratic form of government that ensured the insulation of the governors from the governed."
Sure, women and slaves and indigenous native people were nowhere on the radar screen, and poor, working class white males were largely disenfranchised and marginalized from the whole political process. But it was those checks and balances (plus federalism) that was supposed to insulate and protect the liberty of the citizenry from oppression by a handful of wealthy elites.
For the Jeffersonians, that model of fragmented democratic government was an end in itself. For the Hamiltonians, it was just a means towards an end, an end in which commerce, finance, and corporate free enterprize would ultimately prevail.
"It's every man for himself!" the elephant shouted, dancing among the chickens.
Bill from Saginaw
Hi Bill--The Articles didn't need a Bill of Rights as most of the states's constitutions incorporated them, so there was no need. But I want to visit the weight you give to federalism, as it's very misunderstood in its historical context.
"Federalism means that the states are primary, that they are equal, and that they pocess the main weight of political power. The defense of the federal character of the American union was the most prominent article of Anti-Federalist conservative doctrine" [Storing; What the Anti-Federalists Were For; p9].
Quoted by Storing is Jackson Turner Main, who observed: "during the years before 1787 'the men who wanted a strong national government, who might more properly be called "nationalists," began to appropriate the term "federal" for themselves'" [ibid; p10]. And there's more discussion and explanation. In many ways, the Federalists initaited our Orwellianism, while the Anti-Federalists tried to argue from the position of what the term had meant prior to its appropriation.
And Bill, you do recall that the constitution was ratified prior to the addition of the first 10 amendments based on the mere promise to do so when it became clear it would not be ratified because of the great possibility for tyranny being exercised under the new form of government, yes? Well before the end of the 19th century, it was very clear that such a tyranny was already in place and has only grown since.
I have argued often that too little time is spent on the Revolutionary Period of US History (1763-1790), that even a whole college semester isn't enough as the reading load alone will crush most students--just Farrands's 4 volumes detailing the construction of the constitution is well over 3000 pages. And it is no mistake that pop-culture encourages young people to look forward and not dwell on the past. In most cases, we applaud our ignorance, as CATO does on this thread. We are victims of this ignorance; yet, we do not even know we're victims, nor do we know where our victimness arises.
Reporter: What do you think of western civilization?
Mahatma Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
One might very easily say exactly the same about democracy. It might at least be worth a try if anyone could find a way to introduce such a strange and foreign concept into U.S. governance. It would require another revolution against imperial tyranny, however, and it seems doubtful that France could be persuaded to finance this one.
There are many steps between having a king or system of feudal lords to having a democracy. The US began by taking a few small steps in the 18th Century, but then in the late 19th Century took a few steps back, then forward again in the 1930s, and then back again since 1980. But during this entire period the US elites were never shy about using the word "democracy," which proved to be as good at pacifying the mob, the little people, as religion had been for centuries (of course they never stopped using religion either). And now with a mature faux democracy, which has a history and tradition behind it that further confuses and mesmerizes the masses, they appear to have the ability to ignore the needs of the majority to a greater extent than ever.
Even a state like China, with its one-party dictatorship, responds to some degree to the needs of the people in order to minimize the chance of a revolution or at least problematic and costly unrest (teddy, who often comments here, likes to point this out and I agree). But in the US, the needs of the common people can be completely ignored as so many are bamboozled or distracted by the promises of the faux democracy that revolution, or even massive unrest, is exceedingly improbable.
Hi kivals--The US "experiment" with very limited democracy ended in 1787, with the bloodless Coup that overthrew the Articles of Confederation and instituted the Aristocratic Constitution we now suffer under. I would suggest reading "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy," by Alex Carey and critically reading "What the Anti-Federalists Were For," by Herbert Storing, along with reviewing the history of the Confederation Period, especially 1781-1787.
The ugly reality is that very few people are actually educated/informed of the true nature of US history, with many PhDs awarded to people professing to be educated in US history when they are merely indoctrinated to its mythos and who go on to teach the mythos as fact. I know it's hard for people to acknowledge they've been lied to and believed the lies their whole life. But it's a very cleansing, beneficial act to admit you've been played for a sucker and to vow that will no longer occur. But it takes a certain amount of Courage of Conviction--like that displayed by Peck in "The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit"--to face an ugly truth, admit what it is, and then take action to correct it.
Thanks for the suggestions and I will keep my eyes open for those works. My perspectives on the post-war pre-constitutional period and on the evolution of the constitution in 1786-1788 were mainly formed by readings associated with law school courses and more recently by "America's Constitution," a 2005 work by professor Akhil Amar of the Yale law school. Amar implied that virtually all those developing and debating the constitution were quite aware of the presumptuous nature of their endeavor and were hoping that the ratification requirements in each of the adopting states would be widely perceived as a cure for such a defect. Though there were no direct statewide referenda, according to Amar, in accord with concerns about the legitimacy of the process, "several states waived standard voting restrictions and allowed a uniquely broad class of citizens to vote for ratification-convention delegates..."
"The Articles of Confederation," by Merrill Jensen is one of the best places to start. "The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution," by Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood's "Radicalism of the American Revolution" are two very important works. And there are two compilations of writings, "The Anti-Federalist," an abridged version of "The Complete Anti-Federalist" edited by Herbert Storing; and "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates," edited by Ralph Ketcham, and meant to compliment "The Federalist Papers." I also had students read the state constitutions enacted during the Revolution, which are all available online through the Avalon Project sponsored by Yale Law School, along with many other important legal documents pertaining to the evolution of liberty and freedom.
I think I started back in law school when I read the federalist papers in conjunction with a con law class and many excerpts from works analyzing same (possibly including excerpts from some of the works you mentioned, as I do not remember -- many moons ago). I mentioned the Amar book because it was recent and received nice reviews. Amar of course discussed the federalist papers and the entire process in detail, relying on a great many scholarly works as well as the original letters. But if any friend or family member mentions having recently read anything interesting about the period (a brother-in-law who is a law school professor is always recommending such books), I may borrow it, particularly if it is on your list, so thanks for that.
"But in the US, the needs of the common people can be completely ignored as so many are bamboozled or distracted by the promises of the faux democracy that revolution, or even massive unrest, is exceedingly improbable."
The technology that has been created since Vietnam now allows an extremely small force to control and destroy a much larger force.
IMO, this power has given the elite the belief they can do what they want and the people be damned.
The technology you mention was developed during WW1, not "since Vietnam," and has indeed allowed "them" to "do what they want and the people be damned."
One wonders how much longer they'll even bother with the faux democracy constructs and the expenses they entail. I suppose the costs hardly matter when they're so easy to recoup, and it's hard to argue with success.
I suspect that the inertia in the system will keep it going long after virtually everyone, in the US and around the world, recognizes it as a complete farce.
I haven't read the articles or comments, but the answer to the question is definitive, absolute, and emphatic:
The government is THEM. They are not merely indifferent to us or cynical about us, or aloof from us. They HATE us.
They hate the threat we pose; they hate the fact that their money can't buy QUITE everything; they hate most of all the fact that they need us.
I'd like to say that I don't agree with you, but I can't say that!
I think you are absolutely correct. Our elected officials treat us with contempt, and take whatever they can get from us, without giving more than a few crumbs back to us -- and crumbs only when they are forced to throw them our way.
is definitive, absolute,
From the article:
"It became abundantly clear that government power was necessary to regulate the swoonish swings of the marketplace...Thus the Federal Reserve Board..."
Is the author naive or disingenuous? The Federal Reserve is NOT federal, and it has NO reserves. It's a consortium of private banks, and its only purposes are to transfer capital upward, and then to protect it from losing value through inflation. Any benefits which might accrue to the public (and I'm stuck trying to name one) are purely coincidental, and probably begrudged.
If we had a national bank which would serve to stablize the money supply and regulate interest rates on a non-profit basis, that would be a Jeffersonian solution. Instead we're saddled for the present with a system of which even Hamilton would be suspicious.
This is the nation that tried Prohibition, tried it for over a decade. This is the nation that for decades in its television and movies had married couples sleeping in separate beds. This nation, made up of possibly the tightest-assed people in the western world, lives its life like cattle going down an impossibly narrow ramp to their own slaughter. Politics in this country has become a nightmare from which we are NOT trying to awake.
This argument is simply bogus. To take sides with one of the elites in a debate about what America should be like is to ignore democracy. To take sides with Alexander Hamilton, who was for the financial elite at the time, is absurd. The American Revolution was the American elite revolting against the British elite. These "founding fathers" then worked hard at appeasing "we the people." The Bill of Rights, are amendments to the Constitution, they were added as an afterthought. We should not forget this, since that is the part we worship the most. Never mind that the powerful can never honestly grant rights to the powerless through a contract. For example, the fifth amendment, which guarentees a right to a fair trial and prevents self incrimination is not enforced. Over 90% of criminal cases end in a plea bargain, where there is no trial and the defendant testifies against themself.
The choice then, is not between Republican individualism, and Democratic big government. The wisest choice is collective and democratic. Under the current system, the working class is supposed to remain separate and individualistic, while the capitalist elite controls the "big government." So instead of single payer, we get trillion dollar bailouts of the financial institutions.
Another aspect of the idea of a "fair trial" that simply does not exist is the notion that one may confront their accusers; this is simply not the case, especially in even the most drug minor of drug related "crimes." The prosecution (persecution?) simply relies on unnamed witnesses and other bogus "witnesses" and they remain hidden from public view and court documents. The system is screwed beyond hope.
Time to start over? Or, as Jefferson stated, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Yes, overdue, and forestalled only by inertia. Fear and laziness are also cardinal sins.
This argument is simply bogus. To take sides with one of the elites in a debate about what America should be like is to ignore democracy. To take sides with Alexander Hamilton, who was for the financial elite at the time, is absurd. The American Revolution was the American elite revolting against the British elite. These "founding fathers" then worked hard at appeasing "we the people." The Bill of Rights, are amendments to the Constitution, they were added as an afterthought. We should not forget this, since that is the part we worship the most. Never mind that the powerful can never honestly grant rights to the powerless through a contract. For example, the fifth amendment, which guarentees a right to a fair trial and prevents self incrimination is not enforced. Over 90% of criminal cases end in a plea bargain, where there is no trial and the defendant testifies against themself.
The choice then, is not between Republican individualism, and Democratic big government. The wisest choice is collective and democratic. Under the current system, the working class is supposed to remain separate and individualistic, while the capitalist elite controls the "big government." So instead of single payer, we get trillion dollar bailouts of the financial institutions.
The Hamiltonian ethos is wrongly described, in that it proposed that government would operate in the interests of business, which it certainly has since the Civil War, reference to Gabriel Kolko's work. By the same token, the Jeffersonian ethos, when applied to the notion of freedom in an industrial context, doesn't exclude government action on behalf of the public interest--thus his proposals for public education, founding of the University of Virginia, etc.
True socialism is democratic, and is in the Jeffersonian spirit. The corporate state (the result of Hamiltonianism), undermines the public interest rightly understood.
Right on, David. You wrote what I was about to write.
Hamilton was a monarchist and elitist who firmly believed that ordinary people are little more than animals, to be exploited and controlled by their betters, the wealthy.
Jefferson, for all his *many* flaws, believed in what we'd call "devolved government" today - government that is organised, controlled, and operates as close to the people involved as possible. Socialism is, as you note, completely congruent with Jefferson's democratic ideas about where the locus of government power should be.
To the extent that Hamilton might have supported anything resembling socialism, it would had to have been "state socialism", in which a powerful central bureaucracy controls everything as though its members were the owners. A state of affairs (the same people controlling government and business) that could just as well be called "state capitalism", or in Musso's words, "fascism".
I do not disagree but would tweek your remark that the government would work in the interest of business "which it certainly has since the Civil War,".
I believe that after the declaration of independence but before the constitution was written elected members of congress were manipulating our government in favor of business by placing funds given by France to help us fight the British in the hands of business interests some of them actually members of congress.
Businesses brought in supplies from France and Europe at a cost and wharehoused them to be sold to the US for use of the soldier/farmers fighting the British. The mark up for what was free from France was 6X cost. As our fighters staved and fought in bare feet these business held out for payment from our government which, not at that time having income tax or any tax at all, found it hard to pay. Thomas Paine exposed this business racketeering by exposing the elected officials involved. It was instrumental in finally beating the British.
I would say that before day one our government by it's elected officials were and have been since supporting the interests of business. It is an ever growing malignancy that has now reached the point of destroying our democracy.
It is not supriseing that that group of elected officials withholding supplies from our military called themselves Republicans.
The ultimate cause of the banking difficulties is and was usery (ie interest). Christ threw the money changers out of the temple. Maybe he was on to something.
Jesus may have hated usury for moral reasons. The Romans knew, 2,000 years ago that usury would turn an economy into shambles. Our ruling class is dumb as hell.
The Romans would have crucified anyone charging 30% interest. Congress, banks, the courts, the president apparently don't know that charging 300% interest is not healthy for the economy.
But then, money was not their god. We whores will do anything for money.