Week 22: Convention of States

For the past 30 weeks, I have offered my perspective on topics that have arisen during the course of this election cycle. Some topics seem as perennial as the wildflowers that line the highways and byways of middle America. Some, like the novel Coronavirus, are annuals, that appear during a single campaign season and are not to be debated again.

In this week’s examination of issues, with your kind indulgence, I would like to bring forth a topic that is never – neither annually nor perennially – discussed by either of the two major political parties. I would entreat you to consider a convention under Article V of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Convention of States.

Why would I bring up a topic that almost certainly will play no role in the 2020 election? Permit me to explain.

I know of absolutely no one who is satisfied with the political class of today. I venture to guess that most consider them, at best, ineffectual and obsessed more with their own power than with the general welfare of We the People. At worst, they are corrupt miscreants plotting their own welfare at the expense our yours and mine. To make matters worse, we have a two-party system that, almost as if by design, foments disharmony and despair.

Those on the left bemoan the same problems they’ve bemoaned for 50 years, and they offer the same failed policies they’ve offered for 50 years, only on a grander scale. Those on the right claim to be successors to the Founders’ legacy of individual liberty and limited government, yet under their leadership, time and time again, government has grown astronomically and our freedoms have been curtailed. Neither party demonstrates any adherence to a cogent set of fundamental, governing principles.

During the past 50 years, what social concern has been solved by those who sit in the chambers of Congress? Poverty and homelessness continue to exist. Welfare programs continue to teeter on the verge of bankruptcy. Disharmony among the races and genders continues to simmer beneath society’s surface, waiting to boil over. In the media, the query is even posed: are we entering a new period of civil war?

A new civil war…it is astonishing to contemplate. How can this be?

Whilst Rome burned, it is said Nero fiddled. And so it is today with our elected officials and their appointed bureaucrats. Our “city on a hill” is burning, and the Neros of today, the members of the ruling class, appear once again on the ballot, seeking to aggrandize their power.

As with the Great Fire of Rome, after which rumors swirled and legends formed about Nero, for whom the tragic burning of Rome was seen as a benefit (some even saying he may have planned the fire) in that it cleared needed space for his Domus Aurea, or Golden House, the same is sometimes suspected of our leaders today. They benefit from the evils and hatreds they see in our citizenry. To them, we are, by nature, wicked and need them to save us from destroying one another.

I have found, in my family and among my friends, and in my travels across the nation and around the world, that individuals want the same fundamental things: to be at liberty to live their lives and to be free from strife and conflict. As individuals, we are predisposed to harmony with others. This is a Lockean viewpoint, to be sure, but I maintain, from my experience, that it is a correct viewpoint. It is when tyranny and totalitarianism are introduced, that groups of people are manipulated so as to embrace hatred and engage in violence. The introduction of these evils into human interactions warp and dissolve the social contract.

I would suggest, kind reader, that for us in America these evils are born out of the two-party political system. Permit me to share some observations from George Washington, Hannah Arendt and Lord Acton as a way of priming our examination of this assertion. Their insight will lead us to consider why a Convention of States is so important.

Washington said of two-party systems, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissensions, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wish people to discourage and restrain it.”

In her work, “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Hannah Arendt spoke of “party above all parties” in terms of fueling of the flames of anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Germany’s Social Democrat party. This meant that the goals of National Socialism transcended the various political parties and factions and served as a unifying cause for those in the Reichstag, making National Socialism a party above all the other parties of the time.

Lord Acton famously said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Almost immediately following Washington’s two terms as President, the two-party system began to take shape. Along with this formation, politics as a profession in America began to rear its ugly head. Although it has taken a little more than two centuries for the parties to form and differentiate, it seems that we are now at a point where the differentiation has given way to convergence and singularity of purpose. They have, in a sense, become a single party – a party above parties – which just happens to have two factions. These factions are essentially the same, being different in name only. Yes, although Democrat politicians speak of social justice and Republicans speak of individual freedom, their penchant for taxing and spending and controlling our lives leaves little, if any, daylight between the two.

If we accept this notion, that the two parties are for all intents and purposes one party, what is their guiding principle. I would suggest, kind reader, that it is power – amassing it and maintaining it – leading, as Lord Action warned, to a state of nearly universal corruption.

I am well aware of the media’s and the public’s obsessive preoccupation with the presidential race. Biden is racist and senile. Trump is racist and narcissistic. For this week’s examination, I am not focused on the candidates for that office. After all, the most damage they can do is over the course of four or eight years.  Instead, I’m thinking of the candidates for the House and Senate.

In the House and Senate, approximately 25 percent of members in both chambers have been in office more than twelve years. Nearly another 25 percent have been in office between six and twelve years, according to the Congressional Research Service. Politics is indeed a profession for approximately half of Congress.

[As an aside, it is interesting to note that, of the 535 members of Congress, more than 200 have a net worth of more than $1 million.]

With massive political machines behind career politicians, it is easy to understand how they are elected over and over again, despite producing few, if any, favorable results for the American people. I may suggest that they actually do more harm than good.

Feeding these political machines are lobbyists with deep pockets, making politics a big-money game. Lobbyists and the companies, individuals and governments funding them are knowingly making what they believe will be long-term investments (i.e., funding politicians who will remain in office over the course of many terms), ensuring they and their interests are treated favorably in legislation that is passed. Backs are scratched. Pockets are lined. And both parties are guilty.

As have many – perhaps you, as well – I have struggled to think of a remedy to eliminate, or at least mitigate, corruption in our political system.

I believe a potentially efficacious remedy is term limits. If politicians were limited to no more than two terms (or two consecutive terms with a three-term gap between those terms and their next term, in order to avoid a perpetual flip-flop of politicians, like Putin and Medvedev in Russia), the incentive for lobbyists and those they represent to fund candidates would drastically diminish, as their money would no longer be a long-term investment. It stands to reason, I believe, that political power would shift to the citizenry, and politicians would have to rely genuinely on their record and the favorable results they would produce through legislation for the people.

Term limits, though, threaten the very power that half of Congress has attained and, for all we know, the other half aspires to attain. It would be a fool’s errand to advance legislation in Congress to impose term limits.

In my opinion, the only way to implement term limits is by way of an Article V Convention (aka Convention of States). Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a process by which the Constitution may be amended if two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention, enabling the proposal, debate and potential ratification of amendments, such as an amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. At present, all but 11 states have some effort underway to call for an Article V Convention, with 15 states having passed a resolution calling for such a convention.

I must admit that I used to be opposed to term limits, believing that if a person wanted to run and if citizens wanted to elect that person, no one should be prohibited from doing so. It seems, however, that the power and its attendant corruption have become so great, with the grotesque growth of government, that the days of citizen statesmen and stateswomen are lost to us today. It seems that no other options present themselves.

If you are convinced, visit www.conventionofstates.com to see where your state stands on this process, and if you are so inclined, support the effort with your John Hancock.

Week 23: Looting

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman was an opponent of taxing business, a common target for government revenue. He said, “there is no business to be taxed.”

At first, this may seem like an odd assertion coming from a free-market capitalist, like Friedman. He went on to explain that only people can be taxed. A building cannot pay taxes, nor a floor, etc. In terms of taxing business, so to speak, there is always a person or a group of people who will pay. In a small business or sole proprietorship, the owner of the business pays the taxes applied to his or her business. In a corporation, the stockholders pay the taxes from the profits they would otherwise share.

In small businesses, profits are quite often very thin, especially in the start-up years. Heavy tax burdens sometimes come at the expense of business growth, hiring workers or paying workers higher wages.

In corporations, keep in mind that stockholders are not predominantly fat cats in charcoal gray, pinstriped suits reading tickertape reports and drinking highballs. Many stockholders are workers, including the very workers employed by the corporations, who hold stock through their 401K or other retirement accounts. Taxing business reduces the money available to pay shareholders. This is one way that average person (meaning those who are not independently wealthy) suffers under the so-called progressive taxation of businesses.

Another way that progressive taxes on large and small businesses adversely impacts people, particularly at the lower levels of the socioeconomic scale, is that higher taxes often translate to the higher costs of goods and services, financially impacting the consumer.

What does all this mean in terms of looting, which we have seen associated with some protests in some areas of the country?

Looting is theft and often requires destruction of property (e.g., smashing windows, breaking down doors, etc.) to accomplish its purpose. The business owner, whether it be a sole proprietor or millions of shareholders, has to pay for repairs to the damaged business and the cost to replace the stolen inventory. In some cases, the costs are proving to be devastating, resulting in the closure of the business. In less severe cases, the businesses financial reserves are unexpectedly diminished. What happens then? The owner and/or employees are put out of work. They are rendered unemployed. Their lives and livelihoods are devastated. Some may need to go on welfare, thereby imposing a cost to society, which is effectively another way of taxing people. However, this is a form of taxation without representation: a mob of people taking actions that will impose costs on you and me. What gives them the right? Nothing, because there is no right to forcibly take what is not yours.

And who is looting? As we’ve seen in numerous news reports, it is not just the destitute. People of “privilege” (i.e., wealthy and/or white) are among the looters, Jake Paul being an infamous example. How does a rich white guy stealing a pair of Nikes advance racial harmony in America? I await any sound justification or rationalization on this point.

As we observe candidates’ reactions to looting and listen to their stands, it is essential to consider which candidates will uphold the rule of law. After all, we are a nation of laws, not of men (using the archaic meaning of “men,” be they male, female, or however one wishes to identify). Mob action, which is very different from protesting, and politicians who endorse it threaten the Liberty of each and every one of us.

Week 24: Institutional Racism and the Meaning of Life

With the death of George Floyd at the hands of officers of the Minneapolis Police Department, one is compelled to ask why.

Among the explanations I hear, perhaps the most common is related to institutional racism. With all due respect and at the very risk of being labeled a racist for rejecting this dogma, I believe that institutional racism is an overly simplistic, inaccurate and dangerous cop-out. I hope that you, kind reader, will read on with an open mind, trusting in the rock-solid fact that my highest desire is harmony and self-fulfillment among all people and that the greatest sorrow in my life is the tragic discord among people.

Permit me to begin with this premise: institutional racism does not exist in the United States of today; at the very least, it is the rare exception. This assertion is predicated on “institutional racism” being defined as a doctrine or political program, of or relating to an institution, based on the assumption or belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce the inherent superiority of a particular race, and that such doctrines or programs are designed to execute this principle. With the exception of doctrines or programs that are, by design, racist, such as states’ laws on slavery and segregation prior to the Thirteenth Amendment and thereafter racist Jim Crow laws prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, institutions cannot be racist. I assert this, because institutions hold no opinions, have no values, make no judgments, and so on. Only people have and do these things. When it comes to people, some are good, some are evil, some are in-between.

Laying blame at the steps of an institution is all too simple, and, I believe, all too damaging to the progress of the human spirit and all too diminishing to the dignity of each human soul. In a very real effect, claiming institutional racism permits individuals to be absolved of the wickedness in their own hearts and which is made manifest in their own actions.

With the exception of institutions that are explicitly based on wickedness, such as the former state governments of the Confederacy, the Ku Klux Klan and Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League, each of which was or is based on the evil belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another, most present-day institutions designed to execute the social contract are not established on racist dogma, nor are they monolithic in terms of the people who make up the institutions. Likewise, other groups of people, such as those based on gender, socio-economics, faith or race, are not monolithic in their beliefs.

I would suspect that there are officers in the Minneapolis Police Department who abhor the treatment of Mr. Floyd and who disavow the illegal and immoral actions of the four officers who restrained him and who were, I believe, responsible for his death. Similarly, I would suspect that there are protesters who abhor the looting and burning of private property, desecration of churches and memorials, like the Lincoln Memorial, and the throwing of rocks and urine at police officers and emergency personnel across the nation, as well as the murder of innocents, like officer Dave Underwood in Oakland, California, who was, himself, African-American.

These are the actions of individuals, not of institutions. These are the actions of hateful, decayed individuals. They are, I believe, the actions of people who fail to see the importance of each human life and who, consequently, fail to afford each life its due respect.

I should note here that I do not discount the effect of mob mentality. A mob’s actions are something different. Mob action is not, by definition, institutional racism. While the term “mob” certainly has a pejorative connotation, individuals in large groups, motivated by a common cause, can positively or negatively pressure one another to do good or to do harm. I would suggest that it was Derek Chauvin and the other three officers who acted with a sort of mob mentality, possibly based on race (although none of us can know their motivations), violating their department’s restrictions on the use of force through pressure on the neck, thereby violating Mr. Floyd’s civil and human rights. In doing so, these four men also violated our social contract.

Granted, these four men, by virtue of their employment as police officers, functioned as representatives of the Minneapolis Police Department. However, it appears that they represented the department in a manner that violated the department’s very regulations. I say “appears,” because I am reacting to video footage and reports that are presently available. I recall that there have been some incidents that, after further reporting, were confirmed and some that were not. If they were indeed acting contrary to the department’s regulations and were applying a personal and disturbingly misguided racial belief system, their actions were anything but institutional. While the video footage seems incontrovertible, time will assuredly tell.

If, kind reader, I have persuaded you that racism in America today is generally an individual transgression and not an institutional one, we remain left with the same question. Why?

In April of 1877, the great Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote a short story that, from a peculiar perspective, addresses this present-day question. In his story, “Сон смешного человека” or “The Dream of a Ridiculous Man,” Dostoevsky describes a nihilistic protagonist, who is convinced of his own irrelevance and that of the world around him. Intent on ending his life, for his life is worth nothing and evokes in him no real feeling, he wanders the streets of St. Petersburg on his way home to shoot himself. A child – a little girl – begs him for help, presumably for a dying or dead mother. He angrily dismisses her and continues home to his inevitable end, but something unexpected occurs. He is filled with questions about the encounter with the little girl. It awakens in him questions about justice and the interconnectedness of humanity. In his boarding room, he sits in his armchair, with his revolver on the table next to him, and he falls asleep. In his sleep, he dreams that he shoots himself in the heart, dies and is awakened from death by an adventure to an alternate universe. He is taken to an exact duplicate of Earth, but it’s an Earth in which harmony reigns. Tragically, his explanation of this Earth, with its jealousies, wars and oppressions unleashes in those alternate Earthlings these same vices. One may interpret the protagonist to be a sort of unwitting serpent in the Garden of Eden. As the story unfolds, in all its tragic ends, he discovers the meaning of life. It’s a lesson that is likely familiar to us all, but it is the lesson that Dostoevsky declares to be life’s very meaning.

He writes, “The main thing is that you must love others as you love yourself; that’s the main thing, and that’s everything, and absolutely nothing more than that is needed; you’ll at once find a way to build paradise.”

What stands in the way of love? Hate.

Why do people hate? It is a perplexing question, because hatred produces nothing useful. It advances nothing beneficial. It devours the time and energy of the person who hates, and to what end? Search the historical record, and I believe one would be hard pressed to find any advancement in the human condition that was the result of hatred.

Etymologically, the term hatred comes from Old English and means a state or condition of spite, envy, malice or hostility. In considering this list of conditions, one seems different from the others. Out of one term in this list, the others seem to derive. I would contend that envy seems to be the root cause of spite, malice and hostility. But why is this? What is envy?

According to Merriam-Webster, envy is a painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. Chief among the flaws of envy is that it is typically based on one’s perception of another’s advantage, and perception is quite often misperception. And how do misperceptions come about in the human mind? They are formed when one does not have adequate data, in terms of quality or quantity, to make informed opinion or decision.

I believe hatred is born out of envy and made manifest in spite, malice and hostility. Envy grows out of misperceptions, and misconceptions are rooted in ignorance.

How does one cure the ill of ignorance? I believe the antidote is knowledge and understanding – knowledge and understanding that are first and foremost firmly based in our common humanity. I believe we jump too quickly to those things that make us different.

And here I must digress. With all my heart I cherish individualism. Our individual talents, hopes, ideas and abilities bring richness to life and enable us to accomplish together a multitude of wonderful things we could never accomplish alone. Today, society’s focus seems off. We start off by focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion in terms of superficial characteristics, such as gender, age, skin color, etc. We implicitly and sometimes explicitly teach children at the earliest of ages that these differences matter. To be sure, the intentions are to call attention to these types of differences so that we may avoid errors in judgement that come from them, but I believe it tragically backfires.

Do not misunderstand me. Because very real experiences have come from what should be meaningless differences (i.e., the color of one’s skin, one’s gender, one’s age, etc.), society must acknowledge the pain of these lived experiences. I would suggest, though, that in order to move past them, we must let them go. Additionally, lived experience is not a blanket experience. As a white man, am I to be held accountable for the sins of other white men, present or past? My ancestors, including my third-great grandfather despised slavery and fought on the side of the Union to destroy this evil institution. My 12^th great-grandfather, who settled in Providence, Rhode Island, in the 17^th century did not own slaves. Do either of these men afford me absolution from the sins of others? While I’m grateful that neither of those men supported the violation of others’ human rights, I still maintain that I should be judged on my own merits, not those of others. Are such bona fides necessary to prove my belief in the oneness of humankind? I hope not. Nevertheless, that genealogy is an experience I share with my forefathers, and it’s a history and connection that is slandered each time I am told I cannot offer an informed opinion on racial experience because my skin is not black or brown, each time I see a colleague at work include a slide in a presentation on diversity, equity and inclusion that states “White Lies Matter,” and each time I hear the moniker “white devils” come from otherwise educated people. But more on two wrongs later.

Because I believe in the fundamental, innate goodness of every person, I believe hatred in all its forms – racism included – are learned. I have yet to find any concrete evidence to the contrary.

For decade after decade – I would say since Dr. King’s message of character over color was appropriated by purveyors of color over character – it has been one race ascribing characteristics and intents to another, always in monolithic terms and always in false terms. This is the prevailing dogma of race, as opposed to understanding and teaching that each individual is a member of the human family.

Think of Shylock’s monologue in Act III, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” Shylock says, “I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”

The majority of his monologue expresses the fact that we are the same, each and every one of us. The last two lines of his speech, though, serve as a pragmatic warning: one wrong may beget another wrong. Revenge. Is revenge not what we are witnessing now? Revenge, as a reaction to fear and hatred, born out of fear and hatred, all of which has its roots in ignorance. As Seneca reminds us, “Timendi causa est nescire,” or “ignorance is the cause of fear” and, by logical extension hatred. This is the decrepit foundation society has been laying for itself and for future generations.

I will entertain, at this point, a bit of a stretch related to institutional racism. Without further, deeper examination, I might suggest that there is correlative as opposed to causal relationship between racism and institutions, specifically educational institutions. If hatred is indeed learned, and if the educational system’s focus is on those characteristics that make us different, as opposed to those characteristics that reinforce and celebrate our common humanity, might institutional racism actually exist? I hope this philosophical stretch is utterly false. Nevertheless, it may be worthy of debate.

With Dostoevsky’s revelation in mind, contemplating America’s approach to extinguishing the smoldering embers of racism over the past six decades, and cognizant that this remains a very real issue that threatens the destruction of our social contract, might it not be time for a new approach?

Until we truly share a common humanity, with recognition and respect for each person’s individual human dignity, and until this sharing, recognition and respect are institutionalized, we will be doomed to bear witness repeatedly to the tragedies of the George Floyds of the world, along with the grievous backlashes toward the Dave Underwoods of the world.

Never in history have two wrongs made a right. I am a realist. I cannot expect the wronged to always turn the other cheek. The human spirit can endure only so much. Let us apply our effort, then, in eliminating the initial wrong. In doing so, the wrong of revenge is unnecessary.

How can we wrong another if we love them as we love ourselves? We cannot. That depth of love, though, demands a profound understanding that we are of the same flesh and blood, the same ashes and star dust, the same immortal spirit.

Be assured, I love you, regardless of your color, creed, gender, age, or any other characteristic you may express. In this time of crisis, I beg you to pass along that same unconditional love to others. It is the meaning of life, and it is the only thing that will save us.

As we look to November and to the people who will represent us for the next two, four or six years, examine the words and records of each person. Who has and who will bring national and global attention to our common humanity, not to superficial and meaningless differences? Who will foster love?

Week 25: Reopening America
Over the Memorial Day weekend, a picture on a news aggregation site caught my eye. It looked fun. It looked familiar. It showed holiday-goers enjoying the sun, pool, alcohol and music at the Lake of the Ozarks. The picture, in fact, was taken at an establishment that I like to frequent when at the lake. In any ordinary year, the picture would not be a cause célèbre (save a July 1, 2007 frontpage, hatchet-job story on lake revelry in The Kansas City Star and an eloquently written and philosophically astute July 6, 2007 Letter to the Editor response by yours truly in that publication), but this is no ordinary year. Local and national media decried hundreds of intoxicated people packing lakeside bars, despite notices about social distancing guidelines. Certainly, I have my own opinion on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of these partiers, but this post is not intended to address that issue.
Instead, the real question before us relates to the appropriate and constitutional role of the government during a crisis, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognizant that we are a nation of laws, let us ground ourselves in the Constitution of the United States of America, particularly three amendments.
The First Amendment to the Constitutions states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Remember that the Constitution was originally proposed without amendment. It was designed specifically to address how government would be formed and would function. For the Federalists, it went without saying that this blueprint for government had nothing to do with individual citizens living their lives as they best saw fit. Such was the purview of the state and local governments. The Anti-Federalist, however, mindful of the overreach of government, as described in the Declaration of Independence, believed it necessary to enumerate the protections of the people’s rights from government infringement. In order to secure support for the ratification of the Constitution, a Bill of Rights (i.e., the first 10 amendments) was included, outlining a set of protections for the citizenry from the government.
As we look to the President, Surgeon General and Dr. Fauci; to our governors and the states’ surgeons general; and to our local officials for guidance on “reopening” our communities and our nation, it seems appropriate to consider the “closing” and “reopening” in the context of our nation’s preeminent charter that documents our social contract.
Among the first organizations to be closed were houses of worship. The First Amendment includes the Establishment Clause, which was included to prevent the creation or adoption of a national religion. Over the years the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean separation of church and state. The First Amendment also protects the individual’s right to peaceably assemble. With the start of the pandemic, this, too was, in a sense “closed” to the people, as any non-familial gathering was restricted to a small number of people. “Congress shall make no law…” seems pretty darn clear, yet here we are. Congress is making all kinds of laws, as are local governments, restricting our inherent rights.
Next came the closing of non-essential businesses. It has been interesting to see what is deemed essential and what is not. It also begs the question: who determines what is and is not essential? As so-called non-essential businesses have been closed, and business owners have been deprived of life (e.g., the ability to make a living to sustain life), liberty and property, it has been difficult to find anything that comes close in appearance to due process, let alone just compensation, a la the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
Certainly, there may be great benefit to social distancing, working from home, and the like, but the question remains: does the government have the authority to force these practices on the citizens? Would it be better, instead, to have our expert scientists provide information and guidance and then let an informed citizenry make the best decisions for themselves and their welfare?
The authority to “close” America seems to me to be as dubious as the authority to “reopen” America.
It appears that both candidates (i.e., Trump and Biden) are not troubled by the use of the federal government to determine who is essential and non-essential, who may gather and in what numbers, who may practice their faith, and so on. As the election draws nigh, let us evaluate who will be a protector of our Constitutional rights as citizens. Let me rephrase that, let us evaluate who will sacrifice our rights to the least extent.

Week 26:  Censorship

In his play, “Mrs. Warren’s Profession,” George Bernard Shaw wrote an introduction entitled, “The Author’s Apology,” in response to a critical response to the first performance of the play. The play, which is an indictment of society’s role in the institution of prostitution, faced the threat of censorship by the British government at the dawn of the 20^th century. The tongue-in-cheek apology is less an apology for writing about the titillating topic and more about the danger of silencing discussion on matters of societal and moral import.

In his apology, Shaw writes, “All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.”

It was a recent CNN interview with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki that called to mind Shaw’s apology. In that interview, Wojcicki said YouTube’s policy is to remove (i.e., censor) any content its censors feel are “problematic” or “medically unsubstantiated.” As I wondered about the medical credentials of YouTube’s censors, which would enable them to understand what is medically substantiated and what is not, she rambled on and answered my question. She said, “Anything that goes against WHO [World Health Organization] recommendations would be a violation of our policy and so remove is another really important part of our policy.”

Ms. Wojcicki deserves credit, I suppose, for having the guts to admit publicly to her company’s active censorship of content, as opposed to the censorship taking place on Facebook, which that company chalks up to a technical glitch in its anti-spam system.

Before going further in our discussion, kind reader, I want to make a brief digression. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The amendment, as it relates to speech and petitioning, is designed to prohibit government censorship of these activities by the people. This is an essential concept – prohibiting government censorship.

In a world, as intended by the Founders, government interaction with and influence on private enterprise would be severely limited. In such a world, companies like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter would be truly private endeavors and would be at liberty to create and execute their own rules, as they relate to users of their platforms. If YouTube, for example, wanted to ban all content related to free market economists, that would be its right to do so. If Facebook, for example, wanted to ban all content related to Marx and Hegel, that would be its right to do so. We do not, however, live in such a world. Through governmental subsidies, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, social media companies (including YouTube and Facebook) have abrogated their right to independence, vis-à-vis the First Amendment.

Receiving subsidies from the government, companies essentially become agents of the government. It is, in a sense, a soft fascism. But it is that fascist relationship that affords you and me, the taxpaying citizens of the United States, the very reasonable expectation that our rights, as they pertain to our relationship with the government should now pertain to our relationships with companies that receive our support through funds that were taken from us in the form of taxes. Any argument to the contrary, I believe, lacks a sound logical foundation. Nevertheless, it is always an intellectual delight to entertain and thoughtfully consider contrary positions.

If my positions meets with your approval, it makes sense that these social media providers should be guarantors to their “community” members of their rights to free speech. In other words, censorship should be anathema to the “community,” and these platforms (e.g., YouTube, Facebook) should not engage in any form of censorship. Once they do, they prostitute themselves to the powers and/or governments that would seek to control the people.

Here endeth the political digression against social media purveyors engaging in censorship. There is, however, a practical argument against such censorship. Censorship stifles innovation, or “progress” as Shaw described it.

Remember that, in the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras determined that the Earth was round, an idea that would be met with skepticism until the late 15^th century when Columbus sailed to the New World.

Remember that, in 1633, Galileo’s promotion of heliocentrism was condemned by the Roman Inquisition, and in addition to house arrest for the rest of his life, his works were prohibited from being published, to which attests their inclusion in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a listing of works deemed heretical by the principal power of the day – the church.

Remember that, in the 1850s, Louis Pasteur’s germ theory began a paradigm shift that would impact the treatment of disease. It, too, was scoffed at and rejected by many, including those in the established hierarchies of the medical and scientific professions.

Remember that, in 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species,” putting forth the theory of natural selection, which challenged the established belief that species were brought forth in their current state and had not changed for millennia. The so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” was one case in which the theory of evolution was litigated, made famous in the movie, “Inherit the Wind.”

These are but a few examples of major scientific breakthroughs that came from outside the scientific establishment. Contemporaries of these great thinkers did all they could to silence them. Part of the reason for silencing dissenters and innovative thinkers is that it threatens those in power who hold beliefs that benefit themselves. New thinkers may herald a loss of power to those in power, and that very power is often a source of wealth. Contrary ideas are harbingers of destruction for monopolies of thought.

When one contemplates power, control and monopolies of thought, organizations like the WHO, in which people like Wojcicki place so much faith, come to mind. In many ways, the WHO supersedes like agencies in the sovereign nations of the world, such as the NIH, FDA and CDC in the United States. The WHO represents in every conceivable way the establishment. Like the multinational corporations that cause fear and anger among so many, the WHO is a multinational organization. Unlike multinational corporations, which are effectively kept in check by other corporations, organizations like NATO, the UN, and its subsidiaries, like WHO, have no competitors to keep them in check. They are monopolies.

The only real checks to such organizations are you and me, the people of the nations of the Earth. The various physicians and scientists, who have questioned the global response to COVID-19 and who have offered alternate approaches to addressing the pandemic, have been the casualties in the battle for debate and for discussion of competing ideas. Social media, particularly YouTube and Facebook, have been actively removing content that challenges the establishment.

Are we to believe that the only physician-scientists capable of saving us from the virus are at the CDC or WHO? A simple search reveals that these organizations are rife with corruption. This is not to say that all individuals in these organizations are corrupt, but rather to say that the leaders in these organizations have vested interests in satisfying their benefactors, benefactors whose interests lie in aggrandizing their power and wealth. I’ll forego further discussion on this point, mindful of the fact that I may be labeled a conspiracist.

Are the ideas of the establishment (i.e., the approaches to addressing COVID-19) so fragile that they cannot withstand open debate or the challenge of alternate ideas? Are the “community” members so doltish that they cannot read and evaluate competing ideas? If the answer to either question is “yes,” humanity is in a grave situation indeed.

We have abdicated our ability – and I would say our duty – to engage in rational thought to a host of unknown content editors employed by social media giants. We have permitted our right to free speech and protest to be abridged. In effect, we have may as well have stabbed Pythagoras in the bean field, condemned Galileo to a life of house arrest, rejected the life-saving work of Pasteur, and branded Darwin a heretic.

Be it the government directly, or indirectly through surrogates like YouTube and Facebook, censorship threatens humanity’s progress. It threatens innovation. It threatens our very lives. As we move through the summer and into the fall and its election, let us consider who will support free expression and who will censor even one citizen’s voice. After all, if one can be silenced, all can be silenced.

Week 27: Inclusivity

In 1883, Emma Lazarus wrote a Petrarchan sonnet as part of a fundraising effort to build a pedestal for La Liberté éclairant le monde, a gift from the people of France, which we call The Statue of Liberty. Lazarus, a poet, a tax reform advocate and an active opponent to anti-Semitism, wrote:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Lazarus’ poem describes many of the people who came to the shores of America, as well as those who continue to come to this nation, this City on a Hill, to borrow a metaphor from the Sermon on the Mount. Particularly since the 17^th century, people, suffering from all forms of adversity, have traversed the seas in the hope of a better life. As it quite often does, from adversity pullulates prosperity. For centuries, the tired and poor, the huddled masses and the wretched refuse, the homeless and the tempest-tost, in other words the human beings oppressed and rejected by their native lands, have come to this land to have a new start at life.

Exiles, refugees and immigrants – you and me, our parents and grandparents, our ancestors – not satisfied with the social contracts of their homelands, sought and continue to seek a more equitable and a more inclusive social contract. They seek, as we all do, a social contract that will promote our happiness and empower us to thrive, not at the arbitrary benevolence of a monarch or tyrant, nor at the inconstant will of a mob, but by the innovation of our minds, the industriousness of our hands and the spirit of our hearts. Each of us, as free agents to pursue our goals, ultimately function to advance the goals of our society. It is precisely because of that freedom, the freedom to pursue infinitely diverse interests, that we are an exceptional, diverse and inclusive nation.

Lady Liberty’s torch is that of imprisoned lightning. Remember that it was during the Titanomakhy that the Cyclopes gave to Zeus the lightning bolt, a weapon that inspired fear and submission in immortals and mortals alike. To the gods of Olympus, mortals were mere objects for their manipulation and perverse amusement. So, too, were subjects and masses to the leaders of tyrannical states. So, too, are they today. Tyrants, regardless of their title, cause their peoples live in fear and submission. In America, fear and submission are not to be used as tools of the government. Our mother, the Mother of Exiles, has restrained such lightning bolts.

Lady Liberty, Lazarus tells us, cries, “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” Perhaps she is referring to the democracies of ancient Greece. After all, the “brazen giant” to whom she refers is none other than the Colossus of Rhodes, Rhodes being a Grecian island, whose inhabitants were governed by democracy.

In forming our government, the Framers, who were students of not only the Enlightenment but also of Antiquity, knew all too well the hazards of a simple majority ruling the whole of a society. Democracies have an inherent flaw: a proclivity toward mob rule. This is particularly dangerous when considering the size of the states. Should a populous state dictate what happens to the people of a smaller state? More broadly, should half plus one of the citizens, divided along any line one chooses (e.g., gender, race, age, religion, etc.) decide how the other half minus one should live? No, the Framers devised a fairer, more inclusive system for governing our social contract.

Between autocracy and democracy, which are two extremes but both tyrannical, there is a system of self-government that is guided by a vision shared by the whole and that still respects the individual. It is a representative republic. In a republic, virtue and love of the society is the focus of the people, to paraphrase Montesquieu in his work, “The Spirit of the Laws.” To quote Montesquieu, though, when referring to a republic, “Corruption seldom begins with the people.”

This brings us to the third part of former Vice President Biden’s tripartite vision for America.

“We’ve got to make sure our democracy includes everyone. Our politics is broken and excludes too many Americans. Until we fix campaign finance, voting rights, and gerrymandering, it will continue to get more polarized, more ugly, and more mean.”

Among my greatest political pet peeves, the use of the term “democracy” to describe the American system of government ranks on high. The use of the term “democracy” by politicians either exposes their ignorance or betrays their deceit. If Mr. Biden, or any other politician who uses the term “democracy” to describe our system of government, and in doing so believes he or she is accurately characterizing it, has no business whatsoever representing We the People or ruling over us. If, on the other hand, a politician uses this term to stir within the citizenry suspicion, fear and hatred of one group toward another, he or she has no place in the halls of government; instead, he or she should be named the traitor that they are and dragged from their seat in office. This leads us to a question: Are Biden and his ilk (i.e., many other actual and would-be politician) simply careless and stupid, or are they deceptive and treacherous?

Mr. Biden’s first claim is that our political system is exclusionary. This claim would be laughable if there weren’t some truth in it. I doubt very much, though, that Mr. Biden and I view it as being exclusionary for the same reason. I infer that he believes there to be institutional exclusion. Not since August 26, 1920, when the 19^th Amendment was passed, prohibiting the government from denying the right to vote based on sex, has anyone been constitutionally prohibited from participating in the political process. Additionally, cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1965 and 1966 outlawed the application of poll taxes in federal elections and in all other elections, respectively, constitutionally prohibiting conditions placed on an individual and his or her right to vote. Furthermore, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, essentially duplicating the intent of the 14^th, 15^th and 19^th Amendments. As one can see, our political process is, indeed, quite inclusionary. A citizen’s right to participate in our politics is enshrined in our very Constitution.

I would say exclusion does exist, but it exists in an insidious, extra-legislative manner. One need only read articles about intimidation tactics employed in elections during the past two decades. Reports exist of Republican operatives misinforming Democrat voters about voting locations. Reports exist of Democrat operatives standing outside polling stations in paramilitary gear and holding weapons.

Antithetical to the intentions of the Founders, politics is now a lifelong career. Political office is a path to power, and as we have discussed before, power has a corrupting influence. It is power that leads to the issues that Mr. Biden raises.

Consequently, I think there is one solution and one solution only. It is not, as Mr. Biden suggests, campaign finance reform, yet more voting rights legislation or mitigating gerrymandering. I firmly believe that those are just political shell games. I seriously doubt any politician will address any of those issues in a way that benefits the citizenry and their representation in the life of our nation’s government. I have addressed these issues jointly, above. I will not waste your time, kind reader, nor mine by addressing them severally.

The only solution I can conceive that will bring the people’s voice back into the political process is the institution of term limits for all members of Congress. The result would be the destruction of political machines, which favor big money and prop up politicians who are in their positions for their own wealth and power, as opposed to the benefit of their constituents. If those in Congress were limited in the number of terms they could serve – in total or even just consecutively – there would be greater opportunity for more of our fellow citizens to run and serve. There’s real inclusivity. And because politicians would not be in it for the long haul, there would be no reason for big-money individuals and lobbyists to invest their money, because any given politician would be out of office and no longer of use to them. Voter manipulation would be mitigated, because a politician would no longer be using such manipulation for their long-term prosperity. The same line of thought would apply to the need for gerrymandering.

Earlier in life, I was vehemently opposed to term limits. I thought if a person wanted to run and his or her constituents wanted to elect him or her, so be it. As I’ve gotten older, though, I have realized the truth in Lord Acton’s admonition about power. It leads to corruption, as Montesquieu said, and those who are pure of heart tend to be chewed up and spit out by the political machinery of the long-term office holders.

Sadly, I do not think term limits are possible. I cannot see a practicable way to make them a reality.

Therefore, for me, it comes down to one question. Who has actually done something about instilling a virtuous love of country in the citizenry, and who has benefitted from using exclusion as an issue year after year without advancing any real change?

Week 28: The World Stage

The “world stage” is the second of three posts exploring the tripartite vision that candidate Joe Biden expressed for America. On his website, he states, “We’ve got to demonstrate respected leadership on the world stage. The world is facing inescapable challenges: a rapidly changing climate, the risk of nuclear conflict, trade wars, a rising China and an aggressive Russia, millions of refugees seeking shelter and security, and attacks on universal human rights and fundamental freedoms. The next president must repair our relationships with our allies and stand up to strongmen and thugs on the global stage to rally the world to meet these challenges. We can reclaim our longstanding position as the moral and economic leader of the world.”

Let us consider the “world stage” by first grounding ourselves in advice proffered by our first President. In George Washington’s farewell address to the People of the United States in 1796, he wrote, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” His vision, which one might characterize as a sort of political isolationism, began eroding to varying degrees during the 19^th century and was all but forgotten the 20^th century. His vision, though, wasn’t one of complete isolationism. He saw the benefit of free and open trade among the nations of the world. With the exception of the manufacture of materiel for engaging in war, which he felt a nation should have a good degree of self-sufficiency, Washington’s economic philosophy was well aligned with that of Adam Smith. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776, the same year the colonists issued the Declaration of Independence and two decade prior to Washington’s farewell, had an influence on Washington and other leaders of the time.

Regrettably, Washington’s advice seems more distant than ever.

Climate Change

Climate change seems to be a central issue for politicians, one based on a “consensus” of scientists. There is, of course, evidence that the planet’s temperature is rising, along with sea levels and evaporating ice shelves at the poles. The question at the hear of the climate change issue is the cause. Temperatures have risen and fallen throughout the life of our planet. Some claim that climate change is caused predominantly by humans. Some say that this claim is unproven. Progressives regularly accuse conservatives of ignoring science, yet it tends to be progressives who put forth the “consensus” concept related to climate change. Is consensus science?

As is my custom, I will not tell you, kind reader, what to think about this topic: climate change. I will simply challenge you to think. Consider the article “Consensus Science and the Peer Review” from the September 2009 issue of the journal Molecular Imaging and Biology. It quotes a lecture given by physician, producer and writer Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology. Dr. Crichton stated, “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” He continues, “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Science demands a rigorous process of trial and error. It demands reproducibility of results. Rather than take climate change, as proposed by a collection of scientists – and yes – politicians, at face value, take the time to review the data, for and against, and determine for yourself if human-caused climate change is in fact scientific fact or merely consensus. I would suggest that leadership on the world stage on this or any issue should be based in fact and not on consensus or supposition.

War and Aggresion

With the exception of the following years – 1796-97, 1807-09, 1826, 1828-30, 1897, 1935-50, 1976-78, 1997 and 2000 – the United State of America has been engaged in some war or significant military conflict since its founding, which is more than 90 percent of the time we have been a nation. If history, with all due respect to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, informs the future, it serves a nation well to understand the key factors of success in the theater of war. According to Carl Von Clausewitz, in his work “On War,” the principal moral elements of war include, “the skill of the commander, the experience and courage of the troops, and their patriotic spirit.” In terms of commanders, our nation’s generals, admirals and other military leaders should be excellent students in the theory and practice of warfighting. In terms of the experience and courage of troops, our nation’s military recruiters, drill sergeants and other instructors bring volunteers into the armed forces and prepare them with the expertise they need to be confident in their warfighting abilities, which enhances courage in the face of conflict. Von Clausewitz observed that military theory and practice exercised by commanders and troops have evolved such that there is, more or less, some parity among the nations.

“It cannot be denied,” von Clausewitz states, “therefore, that as things stand at present proportionately greater scope is given to the troops’ patriotic spirit and combat experience.” Given the fact that our nation has been engaged in warfighting for almost its entire history, our troops do indeed have combat experience. Thus, for the United States, our principal, differentiating resource for military success must be found in patriotic spirit.

Consider aggression by China, Russia and North Korea throughout their spheres of influence. True, they may have skilled commanders and well-practiced troops, but I dare suggest that they may lack that patriotic spirit, at least lack the degree of spirit that the American warfighter has. I suggest this because of the political oppression the people of these nations – the “masses,” as people in Marxist societies are called. How can purity of heart in terms of patriotic spirit exist in a society that is based on coercion. I claim that it cannot. Such purity must be freely given, and that freedom requires liberty for a people.

It is in enkindling the flame of patriotic spirit that the Commander-in-Chief can play a significant role. As we look at candidates for office, be it the presidency or in the legislature, it is important to consider who speaks to the patriotic spirit. Who embraces American exceptionalism? Who focuses, instead, on our nation’s faults, real or contrived? Regarding our real faults, who uses such issues as talking points, and who takes action to correct these faults and produces results? Which candidates foster national pride among the citizenry, and which candidates foment shame? This is not to suggest that problems be swept under the rug. Instead, it’s to say that we should not continue electing people who fail to solve problems, so that they can continue to have the problem as an election-year topic every two, four or six years.

Trade

The topic of trade harkens back to Washington’s farewell letter and the notion of “extending our commercial relations.” As an unabashed, free-market capitalist, I look to the lessons of history, and it is crystal clear that the human condition for people at all levels of the socioeconomic ladder has improved the nearer a society approaches a system of free and open markets. Furthermore, in any society that has departed from such a system for organizing economic activity, as has the United States over the course of nearly a century, inequity takes hold and socioeconomic mobility eventually grinds to a halt.

Progressives denounce capitalism as an oppressive system that exploits people. This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding as to what capitalism is. It is a system of economic organization in which all exchange is voluntary. A person freely chooses where to work or not to work. A person freely chooses to exchange goods for other goods or for money. No one is coerced to engage in any form of exchange. As Adam Smith described in “Wealth of Nations,” when each person pursues his or her own self-interest, he or she promotes the self-interest of another. It creates a ripple effect that advances the interests of society, as a whole. For example, I want a pencil, so that I can jot down notes for my weekly blog. Another person has a pencil to sell. We may engage in a voluntary exchange if I have something of value to the other person, such as money for example. If we agree on the price, we can make an exchange, and we are both better off than just a moment before. If we don’t agree on the price, I may seek out another seller of pencils to see if I can get a better price. What I don’t do in a capitalist system is force the pencil seller to give me the pencil for less than he or she is willing to sell it, nor does society force me to pay what I perceive to be the unacceptable price of the seller. Additionally, society does not subsidize either party to effect the proposed exchange. Under capitalism, exchange of goods and services does not happen unless all interested parties benefit from mutually acceptable terms. This example does not end with the exchange between myself and the seller. In the wonderful story, "I, Pencil: My Family Tree as Told to Leonard E. Read,” which was published in the December 1958 issue of The Freeman, Read describes the countless number of people from around the globe who also enter into mutually beneficial exchanges to create a simple pencil. Those processing the graphite, harvesting and milling the wood, mining the copper, producing the paint, and farming the rubber, all people from around the world, speaking different languages and holding different beliefs, come together harmoniously to make the simple pencil that I would endeavor to purchase voluntarily. This is a very real and a very practical illustration of Smith’s “invisible hand.” It is not mere theory. It does indeed work, as Smith describes.

Warnings of monopolies and the exploitation inherent in them are often mentioned by skeptics of capitalism as an argument against this form of economic organization. Again, the record of history is conclusive that monopolies cannot exist, at least not for very long, without the support and influence of the state. Legislators allow themselves to be bought and paid for by companies and lobbyists in exchange for legislation favorable to their contributors and harmful to their contributors’ competitors. This arrangement is not capitalism. At best it may be described as crony capitalism; however, I thing the more accurate term is fascism.

Let us return to the “world stage.” According The Heritage Foundation’s “2020 Index of Economic Freedom,” the United States ranks 17 among 180 ranked nations in terms of economic freedom. Granted, we are in the top 10 percent, but leadership in trade begs the question, what must we do to improve our standing among nations? According to the index, the areas that present opportunities for improvement include: government integrity, tax burden, government spending, business freedom, labor freedom, monetary freedom, and trade freedom.

As we look to the platforms of candidates in the upcoming election, who will restore integrity to government? Beware the temptation to assume that one candidate has integrity, just because you think another lacks it. Taking the candidates for the Office of the President, I hear many say that President Trump lacks integrity. I will not debate that here. However, I think it is a mistake to assume that Mr. Biden does have integrity, just because it’s said that Trump lacks it. One need only look to Biden’s boasting in a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (a dubious organization, to be sure, but a discussion for another time) that he would withhold $1 billion dollars in loans unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company for which his son served as a member of its board of directors. One need only look to his verbal assaults of people who question him on the campaign trail, even challenging one to fight. If one exercises fair judgment, they will not only investigate Trumps integrity, they will also investigate Biden’s, as well as any candidate’s integrity. We absolutely should be concerned about the integrity of our government and who will serve to elevate it.

As responsible citizens, we should similarly explore candidates’ economic and tax policies and whether such policies will enhance American’s ability to engage in market activities freely and will provide employment opportunities for our citizens. As responsible citizens, we should, in my opinion, reclaim authority and responsibility for our lives and for our fellow citizens. Over the course of a century, we have abdicated more and more of our individual sovereignty to the state. Consequently, government spending as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. From 1790 to 1930, spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded five percent, save during the Civil War and World War I. During and following the Great Depression, spending as a percentage of GDP rose quickly to a point at which it has hovered since 1970, fluctuating up and down around the 20 percent mark. At present, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for more than half of government spending. A little less than 25 percent represents military spending. The remaining quarter or so goes to protection of natural resources, interest on the national debt and a big category that covers “all other.” Such profligate spending by our economically licentious leaders doesn’t just hurt the economy, it has a ripple effect that damages our standing in the other indicators of economic freedom mentioned above, including trade freedom. Through disastrous management of our national economy, those in government, at all levels, look for any and every way to squeeze more money out of what should be private, voluntary exchanges. Collectively, they form an unwelcome third party that bastardizes free market capitalism and free trade and renders their fruits rotten through the embedded cost of burdensome regulations that add little real value and through direct effect of taxes on the costs of goods and services. Anti-capitalists demand that we look at the terrible of effects capitalism is having today. What they fail, time and time again, to recognize is that we are not living in a free-market, capitalist society, and we haven’t been for nearly 100 years.

As we look to our would-be leaders, question which will restore the trade leadership of the United States through sound economic and taxation policies that limit the role and interference of government and that promote voluntary arrangements of exchange – exchange of goods, services and labor.

Human Rights and Freedom

Human rights and freedoms, by definition, are inherent in each person, as we discussed in the Week 52 post. Rights are not dispensed by government, and the lack of restriction on citizens’ rights promote freedom. Restrictions on rights limit freedom. As we discussed in Week 52, there may be benefits or entitlements that a society decides to confer on its citizens, but an intellectually honest discussion of human rights cannot permit these to be called rights. Doing so diminishes the meaning of the word “right.” I have no inherent right to the labor of another person, just as they have no right to my labor. “Rights” to healthcare or to education are perfect examples. Once we go down the path of accepting these things as “rights,” we are compelled go down a parallel path, a path that leads to servitude. It enslaves the doctor or nurse, the teacher or professor to you and me. If I have a right to these things, how can the doctor, nurse, teacher or professor refuse them to me? Having discussed rights before, I will not belabor the point this week. Be mindful of one more thing: rights cost nothing; they are free. Only the restriction of rights and the characterization of a benefit or entitlement as a right have a cost for society, and it’s a terrible cost, financially and morally. Let us ask ourselves which candidates understand this distinction and act in a way that protects our rights and freedom.

Refugees and Immigration

Economic policy and respect for human rights influence the immigration crisis, a topic we explored in the Week 40 post. I will not repeat that in-depth analysis here. Suffice it to say that nations have borders, and those borders are like the cover of a book, separating its contents from other books on the shelf. Like a book, a nation has a story to tell. Its contents are informed by its laws, its respect for those laws, its culture, and yes, its economic system and the entitlements it does or does not offer.

With regard to refugees (and asylum seekers), the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute states, “The United States has historically led the world in terms of formal refugee resettlement, accepting more refugees annually than any other country. With significant cuts in refugee admissions by the Trump administration, however, the United States fell behind Canada in 2018 as the top resettlement country. Approximately 22,500 refugees were resettled in the United States during fiscal year (FY) 2018. Beyond accepting refugees for resettlement, the United States also grants humanitarian protection to asylum seekers who present themselves at U.S. ports of entry or claim asylum from within the country; in FY 2017 (the most recent data available), the United States granted asylum status to 26,568 individuals.” Part of the reason for cutting the number of refugees was to accommodate an increase in the number of asylees. It is important to differentiate the two. Refugees apply for resettlement prior to entering the country. Asylees apply for resettlement after they have entered the country. With programs like catch-and-release, a growing number of people have entered the country without going through an official point of entry (i.e., illegally) and then claimed asylum. This growing number puts pressure on the immigration system, thus necessitating a reduction in those being accepted under a refugee status. The point to be considered is that things are not as clear-cut as politicians or the media would have us believe. It is an issue that involves human life – real people with a desperate desire for a better life. As an American citizenry, we owe it to them to understand the issues and principles involved and to reject the spoon-fed half-truths of those in power.

America is constantly criticized for enforcing its borders, particularly its southern border. It is exceptionally ironic that the same nations that criticize the United States for its border enforcement policies are ones that have some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world, an extreme example being the Holy See (and being a Roman Catholic, this hypocrisy troubles me greatly). Like so many issues that represent humanitarian crises (e.g., homelessness, generational poverty, failing schools, etc.), this is yet one more issue that politicians love to talk about during election cycles but fail to improve during their tenure in office. Remember that the United States, save Native Americans, is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants bring richness to our culture, diligence to the workplace, and synergy to our endeavors to create a more perfect Union. Despite propaganda to the contrary, President Trump regularly recognizes the importance of people immigrating to America, but his opposition to illegal immigration is used to demonize him as a xenophobe and racist. What is wrong with requiring an adherence to our system of laws? Isn’t that part and parcel of the oath our leaders take – to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? In the context of immigration, consider all the candidates and find out which of them supports the rule of law, not only in immigration but in all parts of our social contract.

Standing up to Strongmen

Finally, standing up to strongmen is a bravado-laden cliché that belies sound foreign policy. Again, turning to history, it is interesting to note that conservatives tend to open America to other nations of the world. Nixon engaged with China, introducing free market capitalism, “a necessary but not sufficient” condition for political freedom, as Milton Friedman would remind us. Reagan engaged with the former Soviet Union, leading to the fall of the Iron Curtain. Trump has engaged with North Korea, which may lead to an easing of sanctions against the Hermit Kingdom, which could ease the humanitarian suffering of the people of that communist state. Carter, a moderate, especially compared to the Progressives of today, engaged with Egypt, enabling the State of Israel to exist and thrive in a part of the world populated by nations intent on its destruction. Progressives are often portrayed as “doves” militarily; yet, it is interesting to consider the trail of devastation that follows their military interventions. One need only to look at the Clinton military policies related to Africa (i.e., Rwanda and Somalia) and the Balkans (i.e., Bosnia and Kosovo), at the Bush military policies in the Middle East (for I do not consider Bush to be a true conservative), and at the Obama military policies that escalated the Bush Middle East policies, as well as his failure to stand up to Russia (e.g., his failure to support the sovereignty of the Crimea), relaying to Prime Minister Putin through  Russian President Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate with Russia after his second election to lay bare their failures.

Bravado is not equivalent to standing up to strongmen. Engagement through non-military means is the “grown-up” way of standing up to a strongman. Will reason or war alleviate the scourge of nuclear proliferation, another key point made by Mr. Biden. We’ve continued building up nuclear stockpiles over the years – granted, actual numbers do decrease, but they are substituted with an increasing lethality of newer weapons – and the number of nations with nuclear weapons continues to grow. Again, proof that the bravado of force has unintended and unwanted consequences. Again, might it be time for reason? Examine at the deeds and records of each politician. Who uses their mind, and who uses their fists, so to speak? Determine this and vote accordingly.