Week 43: Socialism
As an individual, who was raised during the waning years of the Cold War – a war between the philosophies of individualism and collectivism, between capitalism and socialism, I am regularly astonished by the growing embrace of the latter over the former. My astonishment was renewed the other evening while reading Of Plimoth Plantation, written from 1630 to 1651 by William Bradford. The Plymouth colony was founded, in part, on the principles of socialism, and more than 350 years later, one only need observe our current political and electoral processes to see that socialist tendencies are unabashedly alive and well.
But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s briefly define socialism. Simply put, socialism includes an economic system in which the means of production are owned collectively, such as by the state and/or by the workers. It includes political and social structures that plan the distribution of the ends of production in a centralized manner. Again, this is a basic definition. In the economic, political and social spheres of socialism, there are many different forms and combinations.
With regard to the means of production, there are numerous proposals out there discussing the need to break up monopolies, to require worker representation on boards of directors, to mandate greater government intervention into how businesses are run through the application of more and more federal regulations.
With regard to the benefits of production, there are numerous proposals out there, often funded through increases in direct and indirect taxes on all Americans, that would eliminate private health insurance and require all Americans to be on some form of government insurance – or a mix of public insurance supplemented by private insurance; proposals that would outlaw private education, requiring all students to attend public schools; proposals that would provide a basic income to all citizens. The list goes on and on.
What these proposals have in common is the sacrifice of individual objectives and initiative at the altar of the collective good. A problem with such proposals is that the collective good is not defined by the people but by the ruling class in Washington, D.C. These proposals require that one individual works for the good of another, as opposed to himself or herself. No animal, including the human animal, is wired this way. Self-preservation is the most basic of instincts. After that is the family unit as the most basic of social contracts. After that are local communities, and so on until you get to the level of the global community.
This is not to say that there is no value or import in the global community. Indeed, there is. Take, for example, Leonard Read’s essay “I, Pencil.” (https://youtu.be/U3W2v7LN-88) Read describes the global cooperation necessary to make something as simple as a pencil. He describes the benefits to people around the world that derive from their collaboration to make the pencil – their voluntary collaboration. It is Adam Smith’s invisible hand at work in a very real way. Take, as another example, the sharing of knowledge and information among the peoples of the world, from the scholarly work of the ancient Greeks and Persians that still influence our thinking today to the instantaneous transmittal of data across the internet.
To be sure, global relationships have important roles in our lives. Those examples and myriad others demonstrate success when they begin with individuals pursuing their own self-interest, not as a directive from some central authority. When centralized power is exerted to focus humanity on the global social contract, working backwards – against the nature of the individual, unfavorable results occur.
Returning to the 17^th century, Plymouth was founded on the premise that private ownership would not be allowed, that each individual colonist would work for the good of all other colonists, and that goods and services of each individual’s labor would be planned and distributed centrally. This approach failed, resulting in sloth, starvation and crime. The colonists did not want to labor for the benefit of others at their own expense. There was no personal investment in success. Animosity grew as the industrious were required to pick up the slack for the lazy and received no benefit for the extra initiative.
The colony did not flourish until the means of production were placed in the private control of the individual colonists. Once this occurred, production increased to the point that all in the colony were satisfied and they actually became exporters of goods.
In the nearly four centuries that have passed since the time of William Bradford and the Plymouth colonists, think about the times in which socialism has been employed as a mechanism for economic, political and/or social organization. One is hard-pressed to find a single example in which the system has been sustained without repression of the individual. Look at the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the gulags of the Soviet Union, the forced labor camps of North Korea and China, and the political prisons of Cuba. People often point to the Scandinavian countries as examples where socialism works. However, as Nima Sanandaji points out in her book, Scandinavian Unexceptionalism, the success of Nordic economies, which is touted by the proponents of socialism, was realized prior to the great expansion of the welfare state in those nations. Since that time, key economic indicators, such as economic growth rates and national wealth, have been on the decline.
Despite the repeated failures of socialist policies, each new socialist believes that failure has been caused by errors in implementing socialism, that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with socialism itself. Yet, as Bradford points out, the fundamental flaw with socialism is that it is antithetical to the nature of humankind. Marcus Aurelius, the last of Rome’s Five Good Emperors and the last ruler of the period known as Pax Romana, reminds us over and over again in his Meditations of the importance of living life in accordance with nature. History demonstrates that the only periods of great advancement and success – for people at all levels of the socio-economic spectrum – have been during periods of limited intervention into the lives of individuals, which is to say during periods of the greatest individual freedom in terms of economic and social activity. This is true of the growth of the “middle class” in the United States, of the economic success of Nordic countries, which enabled them financially to embark on their socialist experiment, to name just a couple examples.
So, given the examples of history, which show that socialism stifles humanity and freedom advances humanity, why do politicians propose more of the former? It goes back to what we’ve discussed before: power! With freedom and liberty, the political class must relinquish control over the people, something that a corrupt mind is seldom wont to do. Recall the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. To this point, we may explore the notion of term limits in a future blog.
It cannot be denied that socialism, by definition, requires that individuals relinquish some level of control over their own lives, in terms of both their productivity and their consumption, to a third party. That is to say, in a free system, party A agrees to interact with party B. Their interaction is voluntary and each party presumes the interaction will be to his or her benefit. In socialist arrangements, party C sets parameters for the interaction between parties A and B. As party C’s power increases, the equation expands: party C decides what parties A and B must do for the benefit of party D. To illustrate this point more clearly, let us choose one candidate and one issue, so-called “free” education.
In a free market, I choose to pay a college to attend school and to get a degree. I received a federal student loan to go to graduate school, so the government entered that arrangement: the government paid the college so that I could go to school and get a degree, with the commitment on my part that I would pay the government back, with interest, for the loan. Under the “free” education policies of Warren and Sanders, higher education would be provided at no direct charge to students and students and graduates who have student loan debt would have that debt “forgiven.” This arrangement is one in which the government requires you and me to do something (i.e., pay taxes to cover the cost of education) for someone else. You and I will be required to pay, but we will have no input into the cost-benefit analysis of whether our money will be well spent.
Look at the government’s track record in terms of education (Week 49 posting), and it leaves one wondering (at least it leaves me wondering) why in the world would we entrust such important things – like education and healthcare – to those in government. With very few exceptions, they are little more than a collection of power-hungry fools, and their power depends on keeping us (or at least the right numbers of us) hungry, homeless, uneducated, ill and poor. Compare that to a free and capitalist system, in which the better off each individual is, the better off society is. Healthier, happier, educated individuals enrich the free exchange experience and the innovation necessary to continue the improvement of the human experience.
As you consider your vote this coming November, ask yourself which candidate seeks to control you or to free you. Ask yourself if the candidate you’re considering is a person to whom you would entrust your individual well-being. Is he or she better suited to direct your life than you are? And deeply explore if their policies enrich each individual’s life or if it sacrifices the freedom and liberty of one group for the benefit of another group. I contend that we cannot be equal and free if laws and the social contract treats one group differently from another, and that is fundamentally how socialist systems are designed, as opposed to how they are marketed.
Keeping in mind that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, let us not forget the repeated failures of socialism and the human misery it has created.

Week 44: Redistribution

As a child, who didn’t enjoy The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood of Great Renown in Nottinghamshire? Written by American author and illustrator Howard Pyle and published in 1883, the novel evokes the spirit of the old English ballad, and it fuels the rebellious passion of its youthful readers. Tales of Robin Hood reach back to the 13^th century, with works like Visio Willelmi de Petro Ploughman by William Langland and the Scotichronicon by Walter Bower. As time has passed, the ancient notion of taking from the rich to give to the poor has moved from popular culture to political reality.

Redistribution of wealth is the practice in which Robin Hood was engaged. To redistribute, by definition, is to dispense, divide or apportion something anew or in a different way. Some definitions will also indicate that the new or different dispensation, division or apportionment is to effect greater fairness.

Political rhetoric is replete with calls for redistribution. Each member of the Democrat slate of candidates favors an increase in taxes and the growth of government programs. Republicans in Congress and in the White House are running deficits of unprecedented magnitude, and this is in spite of historically high levels of revenue for the government.

I believe the question of redistribution in a political and economic sense is twofold. First, does redistribution advance what is good. Second, who is best positioned to make decisions about redistribution.

A simple example of redistribution comes to mind. I went to the hardware store yesterday to purchase an extension cord. Upon exiting the store, I met a bell ringer for the Salvation Army. I chatted with her for a bit and put a few dollars in the kettle. In both my purchase and my donation, I effected the redistribution of wealth, dispensing my money anew. For the purpose of the discussion at hand, I will focus on the latter transaction, as it is more akin to the notion of redistribution in today’s political debate. That notion being the transfer of money from one person for use by another, typically without any good or service being obtained by the person from whom the money is transferred. In this simple example, I gave a few dollars of my money to the Salvation Army, knowing I would receive no direct, tangible benefit (i.e., use of the services of the Salvation Army). However – and a vitally important however – is my belief, my informed understanding, that I will be an indirect beneficiary of that donation, as it will improve the lot of a fellow human being. If that improvement results in nourishment, shelter, warmth, etc., the person receiving the direct benefit may be less inclined to procure it in an illicit manner, which desperation sometimes induces.

Apart from the mitigation of potential criminal victimhood, I am an indirect beneficiary in a more fundamental and profound way. Believing in the connectedness of the human family, my belief system dictates that when one suffers, the whole suffers. This may be empathy run amok, but for me I cannot envisage in any meaningful way human dignity for one without human dignity for all.

Relative poverty, be it emotional, physical, intellectual or financial, diminishes society. Societies execute implicit and explicit social contracts to help individuals accomplish objectives that they could not accomplish alone. What, though, are those objectives? In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states his belief (and it is a belief to which I subscribe) that the objective or goal of human beings is happiness. Consequently, social contracts and societies should exist to advance the happiness of its citizens. While Charles Schulz of Peanuts fame would have us believe that happiness is a warm puppy (and as the dog dad of three warm puppies, I would say he’s correct), happiness actually is an individually defined concept. Because we’re all in it together, so to speak, it may very well be desirable to advance societal happiness by promoting the happiness of the individuals who make up the society.

A facet of this advancement and promotion may be the dispensation of financial resources in a new or different way for the benefit of those who lack such means. After all, food, shelter, education, healthcare, etc. cannot be provided at no cost to individuals directly or to individuals via social means, such as government and taxation. The question now arises as to who is best suited to make decisions about dispensation, which is to say redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of wealth may occur voluntarily, as with the Salvation Army example, or involuntarily, as with the case of taxation for the funding of welfare programs. (Note: In recent decades, the term “welfare” has come to be used in a pejorative sense. That is not the intent here; it simply means, as defined, aid provided by the government to those in need.)

In voluntary arrangements, each individual is empowered to redistribute his or her wealth in alignment with his or her values and with his or her own understanding of the needs of the community. Are we not humbled by the stories of school-aged children who, with their parents, distribute blankets to the homeless in the wintertime? Are we not inspired by the people who leave a $100 tip for the waitress in the local greasy spoon? Are we not amazed by the philanthropist who anonymously bequeaths the bulk of their fortune to organizations like the Shriners or St. Jude’s hospitals? These are not idealized examples. They are but a miniscule number of the real redistributive acts taken daily by individuals to advance the happiness of their fellow human beings.

Decisions about redistribution are weighed by the individuals. They give according to their ability and desire, and they have an immediate and vested interest in making sure their money will be used efficiently and effectively.

In the voluntary system of redistribution, what happens if a charitable organization does not deliver results or use resources effectively? Individuals can choose to allocate their resources anew to organizations that do perform well, or they can even start their own charitable organizations. I am reminded of some acquaintances who were dissatisfied with the percentage of contributions that went to overhead in some charities, as opposed to the provision of direct aid. What did they do? They started their own charity, with the premise that no more than one percent of contributions would be used for administrative activities. A full 99 percent would be used in direct care to those in need. Many people, who were in need in their community, have been helped through their generosity and initiative.

In involuntary arrangements, the ability to weigh decisions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the use of funds is taken away from the individuals who are footing the bill (i.e., the taxpayer). The citizen’s money is taken by the government and put into general funds for use by Congress and the government’s various agencies that do the bidding of Congress, supposedly to advance the objectives of our nation. It would be wonderful if this worked in an efficacious manner. It would be wonderful if those in need benefitted from the government’s use of taxpayers’ money, but as the economist Milton Friedman observed, no one spends someone else’s money as responsibly as he spends his own. Let me offer for your consideration, just three of the myriad examples that illustrate this point.

For decades, the federal government has used your money and mine, which is to say money they have taken from us in the form of taxes, to simultaneously subsidize tobacco farmers to the tune of approximately $60 million per year, while at the same time spending approximately $71 million per year funding smoking cessation programs. Who in their right mind would agree that this makes any sense? It does not, and in making no sense, it wastes roughly $130 million per year. Think of what might be accomplished with that money if it were not in the hands of Congress.

Regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the General Accounting Office tracks and reports the amount of waste, fraud and abuse that occurs each year. In 2016, for example, GAO reported that this amounted to more than $60 billion for Medicare alone, or roughly 10 percent of the entire Medicare budget. Entrusting the government to resolve the waste, fraud and abuse caused by…well, by the government…CMS spent $117 million from 2010-2017 to audit a subset of this waste, fraud and abuse, specifically overpayments in the Medicare Advantage program. What did we, the taxpayers and the people covered by Medicare Advantage get for that $117 million audit? The government recouped a mere $14 million. Had they done no audits at all, the taxpayers would be financially better off to the tune of more than $100 million. How much care might that have provided to the sick?

As for education, look at the horrid disparities in our system of public education. As mentioned in Week 49, those most in need of quality education as a means for improving their lot in live and for advancing their happiness are the very ones who are provided by the government with the worst schools. (I believe this is an intentional and insidious way for those in Congress to maintain their power and control over those in lower socio-economic strata, but that’s just my opinion.) And what are the candidates’ proposed solutions? Throw more money at the problem – a solution that has been tried time and time again without effect. It is another government program fraught with waste, fraud and abuse, and it condemns generations of Americans to lives of poverty and despair.

The point in citing these examples (and examples from each and every government program could be described) is simply to convey the fundamental principle that individuals will spend their own money better than the government will spend it. In addition to fraudulence and mismanagement, each dollar that is spent – as intended or as wasted – is done so with a cut going to the agency administering those funds. They are simply middlemen, and ineffective ones at that.

Underlying the agencies that run welfare programs are the people who envision and create in a manner reminiscent of Rube Goldberg these welfare programs. I’m speaking, of course, about the people in Congress, some of whom are running for President. Think about these people and the scandalous behavior that seems to be part and parcel of their lives. Think about their hypocrisy. For example, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren decry the evils brought about by millionaires and billionaires, while being in that class themselves. In terms of ethical behavior, look at Katie Hill, the so-called rising of the Democrat party. Although resigning in disgrace over acts of sexual misconduct, she is still heralded as great by those in charge of her party. Examples exist on the other side of the aisle, too.

The point in bringing up these examples is simply to ask the question: Are these really the types of people we want making decisions for us about what is right and wrong? At what point do we become complicit in their misuse of our resources? Is it not time that we demand better judgment and more accountability? I think it is. I also think that it is the individual, you and I, who is best suited to exercise such judgment and to bear the mantle of such accountability.

It is possible. It has been done before. Prior to the rise of the massive government welfare state, we were a nation of people who looked after one another. In the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, prior to programs like federally funded education, Medicare, Social Security and the like, there was a tremendous blossoming of private, eleemosynary activity. Private, charitable hospitals opened. The system of Carnegie libraries spread across the country. The founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals came about. This names just a few examples. These did not come about from government taxation and mandates. These came about from the inherent goodness of people. It was possible then; it’s possible now.

As you listen to those running for office – at any level – and as you hear them demand a redistribution of wealth to advance some objective, ask yourself these questions: Is he or she better equipped to spend your money than you are? Is his or her plan one that you yourself would propose in order to advance the happiness of your fellow citizen? Would you be comfortable entrusting your happiness and that of your friends and family to this politician? What is the cost of their proposals, not just in terms of dollars but in terms of individual liberty and societal well-being? Are his or her intentions fundamentally good, or are they a ploy by which he or she hopes to acquire or maintain power over you and me?

Week 45: Free Speech

The one thing that is most precious and essential to a free people and most odious and dangerous to a despot is free speech. This is particularly true of political speech. Holding this to be true, it is an awe-inspiring thing when one witnesses the exercise of speech, particularly political speech, in a society or culture that does not recognize the importance of freedom of such speech, or more broadly, expression.

Recall the image of “Tank Man,” the person who placed himself in the path of the tanks used to suppress the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square in 1989. He was one of the brave souls protesting the brutal communist regime.

Consider Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Soviet mathematician and dissident who was first imprisoned and later exiled for speaking out against the hypocrisy, tyranny and repression of the communist state. His first imprisonment in a forced labor camp resulted from a criticism he wrote about Stalin in a private letter to a friend. SMERSH, the counter-intelligence forces of the Soviet army, discovered what was in his letter and the rest, as they say, is history.

Eerily, I receive an email each day that includes scanned images of mail that will be delivered to my house that day. This started after I created an account with the Post Office to leave special instructions for the delivery of a package (which incidentally has yet to be delivered, three months after it was supposed to have been delivered). This may seem mundane; they can see the junk mail I receive, bills for utilities, trash service and the like. From other pieces of mail, they can see that I have been a patient in the healthcare system. They can see that I support the Vitae organization. They can see that I am a Libertarian. They can see that have a connection to the Center for Practical Bioethics. They can see that I am a gun owner. Those are just the things they could deduce from my mail in the past week.

Why do they need this information? Who sees this information? What are they doing with this information? At what point might my support for or involvement in these organizations or causes be used against me? At what point might I abandon any discussion about my beliefs out of fear instilled by the nature of the current political debate, knowing that those in power could conceivably access and use the vast amounts of information gathered each and every day, including the mail that is delivered to my home. What repression of one’s expression might come from one letter? Solzhenitsyn could opine on that.

Certainly, a federal agency would not use these and other types of information against its own citizens in order to silence them! I wonder if Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with that, knowing Kennedy’s use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation did just that, a practice which actually began under Dwight D. Eisenhower, showing that the abuse of power is not the stock in trade of one party or another. King’s actions, and particularly his rousing speeches, threatened the established order of Jim Crow America. Imagine, for a moment, what our society would be like had the government been successful in its repression of King’s right to free speech and the free speech of countless others who dared raise their voices to injustice. I may not be permitted to dine in the same restaurant as my buddy Ben, who happens to be black. I may not be able to attend with my niece an event that supports the protection of life, while someone with an opposing viewpoint may not be able to do the same with their niece in support of abortion – all depending on which way the political winds are blowing at the time.

Before we get too deep into examples, let us return to the fundamentals at play.

Colonial rule in the eighteenth century had as its hallmarks a variety of restrictions on the rights and liberties of British subjects living in America. Among these hallmarks were restrictions on and punishments for political and religious speech. With peril to their own well-being, colonists would gather in places, such as under the Liberty Tree at the corner of Essex and Orange (now Washington) streets in Boston to speak with other citizens about the topics of the day, being forbidden to assemble freely in other locations. [It seems reasonable to assert that this may have foreshadowed the “time, place and manner” restrictions on free speech that exist today.]

After Independence and as the new Constitution was being debated in the hopes of ratification, representatives for many states demanded assurance that certain rights would be protected. The Articles of the Constitution discussed the structure and affirmative roles of the three branches of government, but it did not explicitly address those things that the government should be prohibited from doing. Enter the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Bill of Rights was revolutionary. It restricted the role of government and affirmed the primacy of the individual and the individual’s rights vis-à-vis society.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison, in a speech to Congress, introduced the Bill of Rights. Among these, he noted, “The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

Georgia Representative James Jackson addressed the House, saying, “The gentleman [viz., Madison] endeavors to secure the liberty of the press; pray how is this in danger? There is no power given to Congress to regulate this subject as they can commerce, or peace, or war…An honorable gentleman, a member of this House, has been attacked in the public newspapers on account of sentiments delivered on this floor. Have Congress taken any notice of it? Have they ordered the writer before them, even for a breach of privilege, although the constitution provides that a member shall not be questioned in any place for any speech or debate in the House?”

Some of the drafters believed that it was implicit in the Articles of the Constitution that if a function was not expressed in the document, the government would not be able to perform that function. Given their experience living under British rule, many felt that implicit restrictions were not sufficient to guarantee the rights of the new nation’s citizens. The Bill of Rights was adopted and the Constitution was ratified.

As Lord Action rightly observed, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ours is, after all, a government composed of human beings, each of whom – each of us, being imperfect and fallible. Therefore, it may be unsurprising to reflect on the Sedition Act of 1798, the Comstock Law of 1873, and the Smith Act of 1940, to name a few; legislation with the goal of exerting government control over the individual by restricting the free exchange of ideas. The belief, as often stated expressly in these acts, is that certain ideas one might express could threaten to overthrow the existing political structure. But I put it to you, are we not called upon to do just that in the Declaration of Independence if the form of government does not advance the aims of the citizenry?

In addition to these, there have been many state and local regulations that have restricted expression and thought. Banned books are but one example. Think about the adverse impact on society had these books successfully been banned, as was the intent of those in power: The Canterbury Tales, Catch-22, The Grapes of Wrath, Naked Lunch, United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, and Lady Chatterley’s Lover, to name a few.

Perhaps most frightening is the intent of those in power to regulate news and “fake news.” In recent weeks, the founder of Facebook, to be sure a somewhat unsympathetic character, was called before Congress to discuss what his company, which provides a relatively open forum for expression, should do to eliminate speech that Congress finds threatening. How reminiscent this situation is of Representative Jackson’s comment in 1789! What Congress is doing today is the very thing he said we should not fear.

While Facebook can be viewed, in some senses, as a scourge on humanity – reducing our conception of friendship to posts about what one ate for dinner and People of Walmart twerking videos (and yes, I write this as an offending party), as opposed to deep and meaningful conversations among people – it, at the same time, can serve and does serve as an open public forum for the sharing of thoughts and ideas. Open and free: two concepts that are anathema to power brokers in the halls of Congress and legislatures in the 50 states.

Even more concerning, although only slightly more so, than the strong-arm tactics of Congress, is the call of one candidate (i.e., Kamala Harris) to have another politician’s (i.e., Donald Trump’s) Twitter account shut down. Think about that for a moment. A person who desires the Presidency is willing to publicly state – nay, demand – that another person’s free expression be curtailed, because she doesn’t like what he says or how he says it. If one politician can dare to make such a demand related to the President of the United States, perhaps the most powerful person on Earth, what qualms would she have in making such demands about your free expression or mine? How could any candidate who makes or supports such a demand be a qualified defender of the Constitution?

Are we, as an American people, so dim-witted that we cannot review, research and make conclusions about the information we consume? Those running for office seem to think this is the case. In fact, they depend on in it, and in so depending, they seek to foment fear and mistrust among the citizenry.

I reject this notion!

I can abide debates about universal healthcare, free higher education and a government nanny state from cradle to grave. Politicians who seek to advance these measures are merely harbingers of our financial ruin as a nation. What I cannot abide is ANY restriction on the freedom of thought, speech, press or expression. Politicians who seek to advance these measures are unabashed harbingers of our moral ruin as a nation. They lead us to the edge of a very slippery slope and are right behind us to push us toward that first step. At the bottom of that slope is servitude, mental and physical imprisonment, and death. Show me – anyone – an example from history in which the shackling of the minds of citizens has not resulted in such a fate. I dare say such an example is not to be found.

As you hear such restrictions being pushed, it may be easy to fall into the trap of, “Trump is bombastic and unseemly,” or “Bernie is a socialist,” or “Warren is a hypocrite in her corporation-bashing.” There’s truth to all of these statements, but should we not be the ones who weigh and judge that for ourselves? Do we really want so-called fact checkers at Twitter or CNN or (God forbid) in Congress making those decisions for us? Are they truly better at making such determinations than you and I? Are they really neutral arbiters in terms of political, moral or ethical truth? If you believe they are, I would love to understand your position. The drinks for that conversation would be on me!

As you listen to the candidates speak about what topics and beliefs should or should not be permitted in the public forum, consider the interests at stake. While I am sure there may be exceptions to this statement, the politician’s interest is in sustaining his or her power. The interest of the citizen (i.e., you and me) is the protection and promotion of individual liberty and expression. If the interest of the former wins out over the interest of the latter, are we not all doomed to subjugation? While the political winds may blow favorably for one political perspective today, it most assuredly will change in favor of another tomorrow.

Week 46: Fair Share

The notion of paying one’s fair share of taxes comes up time and again in election cycles, and it is based on two key fallacies. First, the fallacy that wealth is finite; that for one person to become wealthy, it must be at the expense of another. For anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of economics, it is evident that this is not true. Second, the fallacy that the wealthy unscrupulously avoid paying a fair share of taxes.

Consider what some presidential candidates say:

“We’re in a situation where you have the top one percent, in fact, making — paying a lower tax rate than you do.” -Joe Biden

“Democratic socialism means, that in a democratic, civilized society, the wealthiest people and the largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes.” -Bernie Sanders

“I want millionaires and billionaires and big oil companies to pay their fair share.” -Elizabeth Warren

These statements and many more like them are illustrative of the us-versus-them thinking that is prescribed in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, a political handbook designed to foment discord and hatred so that these feelings can then be used by those who stir them up (i.e., his “organizers”) to their own political advantage and power. According to Alinsky, “An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.” He expands on that, writing, “He dramatizes the injustices.” In short, Alinsky’s so-called organizer “stirs up unrest.” Alinsky’s acolytes, such as those quoted above and as with our former President, intentionally pit one group of people, be they identified by socio-economic status, race, gender, etc., against another, and then they leverage the media and half-truths to dramatize the unrest they sow. Tragically, this is a playbook that no longer informs only the far left but informs all in power to some extent or another.

Focusing on socio-economics, let us look at the principle behind this sample of candidates’ statements and what it means for our society and how they affect the values and virtues we discussed last week.

To begin our analysis, let us consider income tax data from 2016, which comes from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and is the most current data available. The top 50 percent of wage earners paid 97 percent of all income taxes, and the top one percent, about whom we hear so much from presidential candidates, paid 37 percent of all income taxes, which is nearly twice the percentage they have of the overall income pie (19.7 percent of total income). For those in the lower income brackets, they receive a credit that exceeds any tax liability they may have incurred. This Earned Income Tax Credit resulted in adjustments and direct payments to those tax filers of approximately $100 billion.

It is important to keep in mind that, when candidates claim that the rich pay less than the poor, they are factoring in capital gains tax rates, among other things, making the comparison between rich and poor one of apples to oranges. Therefore, for the purpose of our discussion, let us have an honest discussion and stick to apples, which is to say income tax rates and related perceived disparities.

More data…to maintain deficits at present levels, income tax rates on the top earners (i.e., those making more than $400,000 per year, so here we aren’t even talking solely about millionaires and billionaires) would need to be increased by approximately 20 percent, from nearly 40 percent to 60 percent. To achieve a balanced budget at the expense of top earners, their tax burden would need to be increased to 102 percent. These estimates come from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is important to note that these estimates do not factor in new proposals, such as Medicare for all, free college education, a basic income, and so on.

With these facts in hand – data from the IRS and CBO – there can be no question that the top half of wage earners pay almost all income taxes in the United States, with the top one percent paying more than a third of that. The bottom half of wage earners pay almost no income taxes, with some even receiving tax credits and refund payments.

This brings us, at long last, to two questions: what is a fair share and who determines what is fair? Let us begin by turning to Adam Smith. Contrary to a reference you may expect, namely his work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, consider the thoughts he expresses in Part II, Chapter II of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. He writes, “There can be no proper motive for hurting our neighbor.” He continues, “To disturb his happiness merely because it stands in the way of our own, to take from him what is of real use to him merely because it may be of equal or more use to us, or to indulge, in this manner, at the expense of other people, the natural preference which every man has for his own happiness above that of other people, is what no impartial spectator can go along with.”

Montesquieu also has something to say on this topic, which may inform our conversation – or at least inform the questions we consider. In The Spirit of the Laws, Book XIII, Chapter 1, he writes, “One must not take from the real needs of the people for the imaginary needs of the state. Imaginary needs are the ones sought by the passions and weaknesses of those who govern, the charm of an extraordinary project, the sick envy of vainglory, and a certain impotence of spirit in the face of their fancies.” He goes on to say, “There is nothing that wisdom and prudence should regulate more than the portion taken away from the subjects and the portion left to them. Public revenues must not be measured by what the people can give but by what they should give.”

What is a “fair share?”

As we learn from Smith and Montesquieu, a fair share must not be based on what a person can conceivably pay, as this may inflict a sort of financial pain on the individual and adversely impact his or her ability to pursue the things that would bring them happiness, such as pursuing the noble ambition of building an idea into a thriving business, employing others in useful work, and satisfying the wants and needs of others. Consider the effects of imposing an income tax of 102 percent on the top one percent. It may theoretically address our nation’s financial woes in the near term, but one thing is likely to happen and another is certain to happen. It is likely that the top one percent would move away, thus killing the goose that lays the golden egg. In fact, the top one percent would be foolish to remain in such a confiscatory environment. This is the self-interest that Smith explores in his Moral Sentiments as well as in his Wealth of Nations. It is certain that such a tax rate is unsustainable. Taking from people more than they earn would relieve them of their income immediately and cause them to burn through their savings over time. Without that income and capital, they would no longer be able to invest in business, new technologies and – to be sure – people, whom they or others employ. Again, the goose is dispatched, along with its golden eggs.

They can conceivably pay nothing, but the results of this are clear, as well. Most evident is the fact that the public treasury would be deprived of its income. Under present taxation levels, the treasury would be slashed by more than a third in terms of funds coming into it, and the government functions dependent upon these funds would be impacted. (Whether that is a good thing or not, I am sure I will address in another post!) What may be less evident is the result of turning givers into takers. Giving requires significant work. Taking does not. As Montesquieu observes, “Ambition is excited by work; poverty is consoled by laziness.” This is not saying that those in poverty are lazy. The point that Montesquieu is making is that poverty can result in a feeling of resignation and hopelessness, and an easier route in life is to accept the financial welfare proffered by government than to produce financial welfare for one’s own self. In this situation, I am compelled to share my personal opinion – my belief, based on statements in the public record and on the application of logic – that our political system is, by deliberate design, set up to push people toward poverty and to keep them beholden to the state for their sustenance. The opposing force to this design is the industry, purpose and mobility offered by the free market. At no point in history has there been greater upward mobility for people in the lower- and middle-income classes than in the nineteenth century. People flocked to this nation to benefit from the consequences of a free and open market. We had relatively open borders, which I believe is a fundamentally good thing in a free society, but one that is ruinous in a society that is not free, with a major corner stone of such freedom being economic freedom. Because we have not had a free and open market for more than a century, the benefits of open borders cannot be realized and must be regulated to a similar extent that the economic life of the nation is regulated. More on that another week!

As we see, too many or too few taxes may have detrimental effects for individuals and for society. What is the sweet spot? What is fair? This brings us back to what one should pay.

Should. Is there any word more subjective, more inclined to paternalistic judgment than this?

It seems reasonable to assert that a fair share must focus on results. Thinking back to our discussion about values and virtues, our social contract demands the maximization of individual happiness by leveraging only the essential social mechanisms to achieve that maximization. A fair share must also play to the rule, not to the exception. To be sure, there will always be those who accumulate wealth with the sole intention of stuffing it in the proverbial mattress. These wealthy are the exceptions. The rule in terms of the wealthy is that they use their mental and financial resources to build up and expand enterprise, which provides employment and opportunities for upward mobility to those who are not wealthy.

Therefore, the concept of paying one’s fair share must be bifurcated into one share that is surrendered to the government for its uses, purposes and its cut of the share, and one that is used by the individual for his or her purposes, which may be to build and expand industry and initiative.

The former provides money, the latter provides work and remuneration. If we think back to the effects of work, much more than money is gained by the individual. He or she derives purpose and an ambition that is in no way evil.

Through services provided as part of the taxation system, a culture of entitlement is fostered, and rightly so. If we pay into a system, we should be entitled to its fruits. It is interesting to observe, though, that just the opposite occurs in practice. Entitlement is promoted, a la Alinsky’s philosophy, in those who contribute the least. I do not ascribe blame to the impoverished in the least. They are operating in the system established by the political class (established, I believe, with nefarious intent). A person struggling at the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy could be considered foolish if they did not avail themselves of the resources being offered by government. The tragedy is that the system is designed to perpetuate dependency on and vassalage to those in political power. It is in no way the fault of the poor that they are provided with ineffective schools, inadequate housing and the like that damns them to a life of struggle and pain. It is not their fault that politicians’ answer to this conundrum is to tax more and throw more money into these failing programs, like a distant, uncaring uncle who simply sends a check on birthdays and holidays to demonstrated his supposed care.

It is also essential to recognize the fact that it is not the fault of the wealthy. They provide opportunities to enhance the self-sufficiency and upward mobility of those who work for them. They do so while being vilified in the chambers of Congress and in the media.

In considering the fair share paid by the wealthy, it is important to consider the point of diminishing returns, a point which straddles the fence between what they can pay and what they should pay.

Cui bono? This is the question we should ask when determining what is a fair share and who decides what fairness is. To whom is it a benefit?

History demonstrates (i.e., it is a fact) that as tax rates are lowered – yes, including tax rates on big corporations – revenues to the treasury increase. The inverse is demonstrated in the historical record, as well. Lower tax rates spur economic activity and result in more tax dollars flowing into the system. Higher tax rates restrict and lessen these things. A current example illustrates this point: the recent tax rate cuts enacted by Congress. Overall tax burdens have been lowered, and tax receipts to the treasury are at an all-time high.

With lower tax rates, people keep their income and capital and can use them to pursue their individual purposes, which have a ripple effect that results in economic benefit to society. Higher tax rates limit the benefits enjoyed by individuals and to society. The only winners from higher tax rates are those in the political class and those working in government.

Who decides what is “fair?”

This begs the question: should those in the political class, therefore, be the ones deciding what is fair. From this treatment of the subject, it seems clear that they have an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict plays out in example after example of legislation in which law makers exempt themselves from the very tax legislation they impose on citizens, such as the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). This is a very real and fundamental violation of the principle of the veil of ignorance, making such exemptions unethical. Do we, as a people, want those among us, who are so devoid of an ethical compass, determining for us what is or is not a “fair share,” let alone any other decision of import to our lives and happiness?

As you listen to program proposals and hear that we will tax the top one percent to fund them, ask if they are fomenting unrest, as Alinsky would advise, and whether the lessons of history would suggest an increase in the happiness and fulfillment of the people giving and the people receiving, or are they simply endeavoring to bind us with strings attached to taxes and blind us with an unfounded hatred for one another.

Education, roads and healthcare seem to be the hot topics, as always. Is increasing the tax rates of one group of citizens to supposedly provide more funding to programs that the federal government has been failing to provide with efficiency and effectiveness since their inception a good use of citizens’ financial resources, as Smith discusses? Is the confiscation of wealth through taxation truly serving anyone well, apart from political candidates’ ability use to acquire, amass and sustain power?

Week 47: Values

When I hear politicians, particularly in the run-up to an election, speak of American values or who we are as an American people, I am left wondering if they have read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution itself, let alone the works of the Enlightenment and of Antiquity that serve as the underpinnings of our social contract. The lack of context and the projection of individual politician’s values on the body politic (if I may borrow a medieval notion of a nation and its people, which is, to be sure, nuanced and, I believe, apropos to the true nature of our two-party system) result in warped and disingenuous proclamations of the concepts that constitute American values.

On the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a revolutionary diplomat and politician from Massachusetts was invited to deliver a speech to the people of Boston in commemoration of that august event. In his opening statement, Jonathan Loring Austin said his purpose was to, “review those feelings, principles and measures, which fixed the important era we now commemorate.”

Values are those “feelings, principles and measures” to which Austin referred, and he went on to say, “that no nation will long continue free, after it has lost its virtue.” Before being accused of conflating values and virtues, permit me to draw distinction between the two. Values are statements of principle. Virtues are conformity to principle.

As Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, “When we consider the character of any individual, we naturally view it under two different aspects: as it may affect his own happiness and as it may affect that of other people.” The former deals with values and virtue as they live within a person. The latter deals with values and virtue as they live within societies.

In a discussion of American values, we will leave the contemplation of individual values and virtue to the mind and heart of each individual. Instead, let us turn our attention to those common values and shared virtues that make Americans unique among the peoples of the Earth.

Our values are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, in the Truths that we hold to be self-evident.

·        All men are created equal. This notion is drawn from the works of the Enlightenment, such as from Kant and his concept of absolute moral worth, and Locke’s notion of people in their natural state and their purpose in forming social contracts. When speaking of the value-based principle of equality, looking through the contextual lens of history, the word “men” referred to all people, as opposed to being the gender-defining, divisive word it seems to be today. Certainly, conformity to this principle has been imperfect. We need only look to the evil institution of slavery or to the insidious vassalage of women prior to the recognition of their natural rights to witness this imperfection. However, it is the striving for moral excellence (i.e., virtue) that is an ongoing and never-ending pursuit, as conformity must come from the actions and habits of people, who are – each and every one of us – imperfect. Therefore, it is critically important to draw a clear distinction between values and virtue. We hear this often in the course of political debate – that the Founders were imperfect men, therefore, their ideas should hold no weight. If conformity to principles is the standard by which values are judged, we would have no values. This is not to say that we should abdicate the duty to pursue moral excellence. We absolutely should pursue it with all vigor and determination.

·        We have an unalienable right to Life. The word “unalienable” refers to something that can neither be transferred to another nor taken away nor be denied. In terms of American principles, as they form our shared values and are hopefully expressed as virtues, these rights are grounded in Natural Law and in the inherent nature of these principles in individuals. Rights are not – nay – cannot be dispensed by government. They are embodied in each individual’s personhood. I will save my thoughts on the topics of abortion and the death penalty for another time, but as you listen to candidates for office broach such topics, ask if life is being transferred, taken away or denied. If a candidate claims that any proposal or plank in their plan is a value of the American people, it must, by definition be one that secures the agency of the life or lives under consideration. If it does not meet this test, it cannot be a value.

·        We have an unalienable right to Liberty. What, though, is Liberty? It just so happens that John Stuart Mill lays this out for us in his work On Liberty. He writes that liberty concerns, “the nature and limits of the power that society can legitimately exercise over the individual.” He goes on to write that, “protection against the tyranny of government isn’t enough; there needs to be protection also against the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to turn its own ideas and practices into rules of conduct, and impose them—by means other than legal penalties—on those who dissent from them; to hamper the development and if possible to prevent the formation of any individuality that isn’t in harmony with its ways. There is a limit to how far collective opinion can legitimately interfere with individual independence; and finding and defending that limit is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as is protection against political despotism.” I find it frightening to see the extent to which one side will characterize the other as illegitimate, immoral and un-American, vilifying one another rather than engaging in civil discourse and debate. I believe that screaming and name calling, as seen on any number of so-called new programs or in the halls of Congress, serves as a poor substitute for substance, or the lack thereof, when talking about topics of import to We the People. As you listen to candidates speak, and as you endeavor to cut through the ad hominin attacks and the false choices that are offered up, ask if a proposal will serve the principle of maximizing individual autonomy, development and action. If it does not, it cannot be an American value.

·        We have an unalienable right to the Pursuit of Happiness. This is a societal value, predicated on individual values, that is uniquely American. I know of no other nation that calls out such a principle in its social contract. Without a doubt, happiness is defined at the individual level. Of course, there is overlap among individuals, but I cannot define for you what happiness is, as you cannot define it for me. By coincidence, we may both identify the same thing, but that is a matter of chance, not of rule. The virtue is in making clear a path for the value. The question is, to pursue happiness, what role may the government play? I believe its legitimate role, harkening back to Mill, is to minimize its hindrance to individuals pursuing their unique notion of happiness. As far as I can reckon, the only legitimate role of government in the pursuit of happiness is to ensure that one person’s pursuit does not adversely affect another’s pursuit. Any role beyond that does one of two inappropriate things: 1) imposes a definition of happiness on individuals and/or 2) limits one’s pursuit in lieu of another’s, essentially picking winners and losers in terms of happiness. Please don’t misunderstand me. With the pursuit of happiness being a fundamental value in our society, I do believe the infringement of this pursuit by one citizen or by the government against another citizen should be met with significant penalty, providing such penalty does not violate this or one of the other values. As proposals and plans are proffered for your consideration, consider how they impact the pursuit of happiness. If they limit even one citizen’s pursuit in favor of another’s pursuit, they cannot be virtuous in conformance with our values.

In closing, keep in mind the unalienable rights that lay the foundation for our values and that make possible our national virtue. They are inherent in our simple yet profound Americanism. In his 1876 speech, Austin reminded the assembled crowd, “The dogmatical epithets ‘giving and granting’ were too derogatory to your feelings, and too dishonorary to be obeyed, you therefore contrasted your ideas of right with their assumed declaration, and asserted that the British parliament had no right to bind the American colonies in any case whatever.” We have a new parliament, a new political class that imposes its soft tyranny, which tries – with every created agency, with every legislated act, with every proposed rule – to assert its power over the individual. I entreat you, if not to reject such assertions of political expediency outright, to give learned and careful consideration to each, to each assertion of what American values are and ought to be, and to judge for yourself whether they meet the shared definition of values upon which our nation was founded and toward which we strive for the moral excellence of virtue.

Week 48: Impeachment

In this election cycle, a topic has arisen that had not been among those originally contemplated for this 52 Weeks blog. The topic, of course, is impeachment. Let us begin by grounding ourselves in the Constitution of the United States of America, which is the foundation of our social contract with one another, including those citizens chosen for public office.

·        Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment.

·        Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 give the Senate the sole power to try all cases of impeachment. When serving in this function, Senators are under oath or affirmation. When trying the president, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. A concurrence of two-thirds of members present are required for conviction.

·        Article II, Section 4 lists the offenses for which a president may be removed from office, which include: treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

·        Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 lays out the punishments for a conviction of treason. They include: removal from office and the disqualification to hold office. This is the extent of the powers of Congress. An impeached individual may still be subject to trial and penalty as a citizen under the law.

In the late eighteenth century, after the War of Independence was won and after the Articles of Confederacy were being found insufficient in terms of governing the new nation, the Constitution was drafted and an effort for ratification was underway. To further explain and gain support for the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison wrote a series of 85 essays, which are collectively known as The Federalist Papers.

In Federalist 65, Hamilton opens in regard to the powers of the Senate, “A well-constituted court for the trials of impeachments is anb object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

By way of background, and as an illustration of how times change, the power to try cases of impeachment was vested in the Senate, as it was, at the time, viewed as “significantly dignified” and “sufficiently independent.” The Supreme Court was thought to lack the appropriate degree of credit and authority to try such cases. Additionally, impeachment is predicated on some political violation, as described above, and not necessarily a violation of law, for which the Supreme Court was designed to adjudicate.

Providing alternative arguments during the period of consideration of ratification were writings that have become, collectively, The Anti-Federalist Papers. Under the nom de plume Brutus, the issue of high crimes and misdemeanors was mentioned on March 20, 1788. “Treason and bribery are named, and the rest are included under the general terms of high crimes and misdemeanors. Errors in judgment, or want of capacity to discharge the duties of the office, can never be supposed to be included in these words, high crimes and misdemeanors.

With insight from these papers into the intentions of those who designed the impeachment process, we must weigh the impending impeachment of Donald Trump from two perspectives.

First, are the accusations against him ones of errors in judgment or want of capacity to discharge his office? For clarification, the word capacity, at that time, included concepts that we may differentiate today as capability. It is ability in a legal, moral or intellectual sense.

Second, are the accusations against him born of a dislike for the political philosophy he espouses or the personal characteristics he embodies.

In The Federalist Papers, impeachment is described as a “national inquest.” If this inquest proves nothing more than an error in judgment or exposes no more than an agitation of the passions, we must, through the lens of principle, disregard his alleged offenses, if we are to cast votes unprejudiced by the animosity of the president’s political opponents. However, if he be accused and perhaps condemned of substantive violations of the public trust, which injure the body politic, we must let that guide our consciences in casting our votes.

In Federalist 64, Jay writes, as it relates to corruption in the execution of treaties, “As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained.” The Founders envisioned persons of good will to be elected to office and that the will of the people would guide such elections.

The House of Representatives, our representatives, hold the power to impeach; the Senate to convict. As citizens, it is our duty to let our voices be heard by our representatives. Weigh the issue in the context of the Constitution and informed by the two questions above. Then, without the subjectivity of passion, tell your representative how to proceed, consistent with your expectation of him or her.

Week 49: Education

“The foundation of every state is the education of its youth,” said Diogenes. Building on this belief, people of influence across the ages have expressed the desire to achieve more than just laying a societal foundation. Some have opined on the notion that ideologies may be ingrained in societies if those in power can control the education of the youth. Some form of “give me a child to teach in his early years, and I will sow a seed that will never be uprooted,” has been attributed to Aristotle, Jesuit leaders, Stalin, Skinner and others. Some with noble intentions, some nefarious.

Regardless of the intention, I believe there is a great deal of truth in this notion. For this reason, there should be little surprise that education in America is such a big business. Nor should there be any surprise that it has been so politicized since the 1970s, when the federal government got into the business of education with the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education.

According to the its FY2018 Agency Financial Report, the department’s total budgetary resources (i.e., what it has to spend) amounted to $358.5 billion, with nearly half of that being borrowed money (i.e., debt incurred to fund the department).

As with any enterprise of this magnitude, resources are neither taken nor given freely, nor should they be. Think, though, of multitude of strings attached to the monies flowing in and out of the Department of Education. You can read about those strings in the varied and sundry acts and programs enacted by Congress. No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and Every Student Succeeds are but a few recent examples of plans put forth to improved our bedeviled system of public education in the United States. As with any use of someone else’s money (i.e., yours and mine through the taxes we pay), there should indeed be strings attached. Those strings should relate to beneficial outcomes, which is to say a favorable return on investment.

Since the 1970s, funding for the Department of Education through tax revenues and deficit spending, while having periods of financial ebbs and flows, has increased significantly. Since that time, our system of public education continues to fail so many American students, particularly those who most need the benefits derived from the educational process. For the moment, let us ascribe to the law and policy makers good intentions in terms of the legislation and regulations they enact.

Unfortunately, the intentions of the do-gooders in Washington seem to give way to the failure of unintended consequences over and over again. With the No Child Left Behind Act, for example, an overemphasis was placed on teaching to standardized exams. Of the 11 states that received grants in the Race to the Top program, only four produced improved graduation rates. As for the Every Student Succeeds Act, critics point out that there are relatively few changes from previous legislation that would improve the lot of students in vulnerable populations. Yet, as Reagan stated in his “A Time for Choosing” speech to the 1964 Republican convention, “The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” This seems apropos the discussion of federal involvement in public education.

And what is the answer to the repeated failure of plan after plan? Let us spend more money. We’ll get it right next time. I ask: are the minds and futures of generation upon generation of youth a fair price to pay politicians for their experiments in education?

To that point, Harry Truman said that politicians are the “C” students of the world. In general, I think he was correct. If we accept that general premise, do we really want the members of Congress and the administration appointees designing our educational system, developing curricula and defining student success?

As politicians this election year put forth their plans for education, I think it’s important to ask a couple questions.

1.       Who best has the interest of individual students in mind and heart? Is it a politician, seeking to maintain their power in Washington, or is the parents of individual students? Do the educational planks of candidate platforms place control in the District of Columbia or in the homes and local communities of students and parents?

2.       How do candidates’ proposals ensure that good money isn’t thrown after bad?

3.       How do the strings attached to funding for public education benefit students and parents, as opposed to the apparatchiks in Congress and in the Department of Education?

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the importance of education and learning in the United States, recognizing that they are essential to Liberty and a free people. More than 130 years prior to the federal government established the Department of Education, de Tocqueville observed, “There is hardly a pioneer's hut which does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare. I remember reading the feudal drama of Henry V for the first time in a log cabin.” He also noted that the homes he visited were always appointed with an axe, a bible and newspapers.

The love of learning and the recognition that it is a necessary condition for Freedom has historically been a key facet of the American identity. It is so important in lifting people up and in ensuring that each person fully benefits from citizenship. I am by no means saying that we should do away with education generally or public education specifically. I’m simply suggesting that we should be cautious in regard to whom we would turn over the tutelage of our fellow citizens, be they five or fifty-five.

In the Enchiridion of Epictetus, Arrian recalls some advice from Epictetus, which goes, “If a person gave your body to any stranger he met on his way, you would certainly be angry. And do you feel no shame in handing over your own mind to be confused and mystified by anyone who happens to verbally attack you?” This precept should have great value for our society today, as free and open thinking in the classrooms and on the campuses of academe faces the forces of oppression. Even those who suggest that the intentions of those in Congress might be misguided are pilloried with all manner of ad hominem attacks, onus probandi fallacies, or the fallacies of single cause.

As always, the purpose of these weekly posts is not to tell you what to think but to beg your engagement in the thought process and the discussion of election-year issues. As always, I invite you to share your thoughts and arguments in the comment section below.