Week 30: Wasted Crisis

The quote, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” echoes in the background, as one considers politicians’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Some reading this quote will recall that Rham Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, said this when discussing the political opportunity presented by a shooting in Tuscon, Arizona, in which six people were killed and 14 were injured. His statement was merely a riff on similar philosophies, which may be found in works, such as Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” and Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince.”

It has been astonishing to observe the hyper-partisan, political gamesmanship taking place in terms of actions being proposed to address the crisis. As conceived by Machiavelli, Alinsky and Emanuel, the COVID-19 pandemic is being viewed by those in power (and by those who covet power) as an opportunity to push through their special interests or those of their benefactors (i.e., lobbyists and election contributors). While true of both parties, it appears to be a strategy particularly leveraged by Democrats. This makes sense, because they control only one half of one of the three branches of government. Furthermore, the President’s approval ratings are at the highest level of his presidency, even in the midst of this national emergency. Considering that, many on the left must be concerned about their ability to expand control of the organs of government in the upcoming election. Consequently, loading up the CARES act with pork projects and ideologically-based regulations is the only avenue available to them to further control the lives of citizens and secure their power over us.

Under normal circumstances, I would argue vociferously against huge spending bills. Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic – for decades upon decades – we have been spending more that we can afford for federal programs that essentially create government monopolies in massive sectors of the socio-economic life of the nation. These de facto monopolies, like healthcare, retirement, safety nets, etc. have resulted in higher costs for the people, appalling waste, fraud and abuse for the taxpayers, and lower quality services for those in need.

With the CARES act, I’ve been pushed into an interesting ideological corner. I actually think the government has a responsibility to provide aid and relief, because it is government, at all levels, which has forced businesses to close and people to stay at home. This very well may be the right thing to do in order to prevent the spread of the virus. Assuming it is, it seems appropriate that the government should also have the responsibility to make citizens whole. They tell many Americans that they are prohibited from engaging in activities to earning a living and support themselves. Again, they are doing this for what are likely sound reasons, but they the government should then bear the responsibility for supporting those Americans.

Unfortunately, politicians wasted this crisis in a very important way. They had the opportunity to pass a clean bill that would provide direct aid to those in need. Instead, they bickered and delayed over political topics like airline emissions and diversity standards for corporate boards. They couldn’t focus on providing immediate aid to those in need. They had to grandstand for their own political advantage. They had the opportunity in this crisis to be statesmen and stateswomen. Many, instead, chose to be power-hungry, manipulative apparatchiks of party leadership and special-interest masters.

The saving grace in all of this may be found in the character of the American people. With some exceptions, of course, We the People have not wasted this crisis. In communities across the nation, neighbors are helping one another face this situation. People are, to a large extent, staying home. In work and in personal life, the innovation of the American people is resulting in new and creative ways to stay connected and to be productive. To the extent possible, people are doing what they can to support local businesses, making sure that the mom-and-pops will still be there when this pandemic passes.

As we think about the future leaders of our nation, be they in the Presidency or in Congress, consider which candidates exemplify the lust for power of politicians and which exemplify the positive, self-reliance of the American people. Vote accordingly.

Week 31: Emergency Powers

I do not think it would be hyperbole to say that this election year has been extraordinary. It seems safe to say that the incumbent is a colorful character. His competitors have been a collection of characters who have all tried to outdo one another in terms of pseudo-socialist ideology. Layer on an impeachment and now a pandemic that is, in essence, shutting down our nation (we have yet to see if that will move from essence to fact), and it becomes apparent that we are living through some remarkable times.

Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, includes what is commonly referred to as the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” which grants Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

On September 14, 1976, the 94^th Congress of the United States enacted such a law. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) was intended to provide structure and consistency regarding national emergencies and the power of the government, namely the Executive. Prior to the NEA, many presidents had declared national emergencies and assumed certain powers to manage those emergencies. Of those declarations, many were challenged in the courts. Title I of the act provided for the orderly termination of all national emergencies then in effect or continuance under the provisions of the new act.

The NEA grants the President more than 130 emergency powers, most of which may be used without Congressional approval upon the declaration of an emergency. The powers are sweeping.

Another example of legislation that empowers the President in times of emergency, which you may be hearing about in the news, is the Stafford Act. Enacted by the 100^th Congress of the United States, the act is designed to provide federal assistance during a natural disaster. It also provides sweeping authority to the Executive.

As our nation and the world deal with COVID-19, we are seeing the various actions that national and local governments are taking to combat the virus. While I will not opine on the measures themselves, I would like to offer for your kind consideration the philosophical underpinnings of such authority. In so considering, we may be more fully informed at the ballot box when determining which candidate will better use and respect the emergency powers vested in the presidency.

In the United States, the notion of a tyrant or dictator is anathema to most citizens and most certainly to our founding principles. In Federalist 69 and Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton painstakingly drew distinctions among the proposed roles and responsibilities of the President, those of the king of Great Britain and those of the governor of New York (which is a timely and interesting coincidence, given the restrictions being enacted in New York presently). He then explored the risks and benefits of a strong versus weak executive. Hamilton was making the case for executive authority to be vested in one elected citizen: the President. The Framers believed this would facilitate efficient action, balanced, of course, by the other co-equal branches of government, namely the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Over the course of time, Congress would enact necessary and proper legislation that expanded, and sometimes restricted, the authority of the President. Today, as mentioned above, that authority is not without significant breadth and depth. One indicator to consider is the number of executive orders issued by a president. In my lifetime (1972-present), the most prolific presidents in terms of producing executive orders are Jimmy Carter with an average of 80 per year in office and Gerald Ford with an average of 69.1 per year in office. The two presidents with the fewest executive orders per year in office were Barack Obama (34.6) and George W. Bush (36.4). Specific to declarations of national emergency, there are currently more than 30 active declarations, dating back to President Carter’s Executive Order 12170, which freezes Iranian government assets, and up to President Trump’s Proclamation 9994, which puts in place COVID-19-related travel restrictions.

In national emergencies, the President – any President – may activate military forces, marshal and direct the efforts of the private sector, enact curfews and suspend rights, to just scratch the surface of presidential authority.

Each generation faces its monumental challenge. Perhaps COVID-19 is ours. When facing such challenges, is the character of leadership a matter of consequence? I believe it is.

In the 59^th chapter of the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu discusses the importance of moderation and simplicity in governing one’s life and in governing others. If a person understands this and understands the obstacles that stand in the way of moderation and simplicity, that person can be a good leader. In Federalist 57, James Madison writes about the character of leaders. Granted, Federalist 57 addresses charges levied against the Constitution’s plan of representation in the House of Representatives, but the characteristics Madison describes seem to be apropos to any leader. He writes, “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

As we make our way through the COVID-19 pandemic, reflect on leadership. The two references above may be of use, or think about any other leaders you respect. Who is better, among the choices we have, to lead our nation. Hopefully, we’ll be past this crisis by November. Regardless, which candidate do you want, no, which candidate do you think (wanting denotes a decision made in part on emotion, thinking denotes a decision made on intellectual discernment) should occupy the Executive, cloaked in the mantle of sweeping authority? May we all choose wisely.

Week 32: Abortion

In last week’s post, I referred to abortion as one topic more controversial than that of the Second Amendment. No issue encompasses with such depth and breadth the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as does abortion. Those who support each side of the debate claim their position better guarantees these fundamental American precepts better than the other side. Let us explore their positions.

As is often important when discussing a controversial topic, it is desirable to agree upon definitions.

Abortion. According to Medline Plus, part of the National Institutes of Health, abortion is defined as, “a procedure to end a pregnancy. It uses medicine or surgery to remove the embryo or fetus and placenta from the uterus.”

Embryo. According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing, embryo is defined as “the developing organism from conception until the end of the eighth week; developmental stages from this time to birth are commonly designated as fetal.”

Fetus. Also according to Stedman’s, fetus is defined as “the product of conception from the end of the eighth week of gestation to the moment of birth.” Interestingly, this is the second definition in the medical dictionary. The first definition of fetus is, “the unborn young of a viviparous animal following the embryonic period.” Human women also are viviparous, meaning they carry fertilized eggs internally, as opposed to animals that lay eggs.

With some key definitions established, let us consider a very brief and extremely high-level history of abortion, specifically induced abortion. Some suggest that there has been abortion as long as there has been birth, but the earliest-known, written account of induced abortion comes from the Ebers Papyrus, which is dated to 1550 B.C. In addition to a wide variety of other information, it provides instructions for preparing a vaginal suppository, using acacia gum, dates, herbs, honey and plant fiber. This suppository was used to induce abortion. In the Code of Assura, dated to 1075 B.C., a woman who engaged in abortion was subject to trial and crucifixion. This is the earliest-known account of the death penalty being used as a punishment for abortion. To be clear, I only mention the Code of Assura as an example of such consequences for abortion. I am not arguing for or against such a penalty, as the code has inherent flaws in terms of the equitable application of punishments, particularly as applied between men and women. Since those times, many societies have established prescriptions and proscriptions related to abortion. Some have been based on legal precepts, some religious.

Jumping forward a few thousand years, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the 14^th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which guarantees a right to privacy, protects a woman’s ability to have an abortion as part of their right to privacy. They did specify that there were varying degrees of protection for the act of abortion. In the first trimester, there is an unrestricted right to abortion. In the second trimester, the government may apply health-related requirements that would restrict the abortion right. In the third trimester, state governments could prohibit abortion providing an exception for saving the life of the mother existed. The court’s ruling is similar to the stages identified by Aristotle and his opinions related to abortion. He relied on a form and function assessment. Until the fetus was fully formed as a human and could essentially function as one, it was nothing more than a mass of material without a soul. Interestingly, St. Augustine for some time shared a similar view to Aristotle. Both based their opinions on an argument that may sound familiar to us today – when does human life start. More on that in a moment.

Today, the legal precedent established under Roe v. Wade is being challenged in the Supreme Court. Both Republicans and Democrats are hoping to win the presidency and to control the Senate so they may influence the makeup of the court. An important reason for this directly relates to the impact the court will have on the issue of abortion in the very near term.

As citizens, it is important that we all thoroughly understand this issue so that we may weigh in, by way of our vote, in the upcoming election. Some may argue that abortion is a woman’s issue. With all due respect, it is not just a woman’s issue. Excepting an immaculate conception, pregnancy takes a man and a woman to occur. This is true in the sense of traditional procreation. It is also true for in vitro fertilization (IVF), because a man must contribute sperm for this type of conception. Two key, intertwined issues are those of rape and life of the mother.

As a classical liberal, I believe that the choices people make for themselves, which affect no one but themselves, are none of my business, nor are they the government’s business. Abortion does not qualify as such a choice, primarily for the reason that a fetus is created, in part, by a man. As such, he must be an interested party. Beyond the two people contributing eggs and sperm, each citizen is involved in abortion, not by choice but by legislative fiat. Efforts are and have been afoot to legally require the coverage of abortion in both public and private health insurance plans, as well through public funding of private organizations, such as Planned Parenthood. As taxpayers, Democrat policies would have us fund abortion through grants provided to Planned Parenthood and through benefits conferred through Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Their policies also would require private health insurance to cover abortion. Slick politicians will argue that the money the federal government provides to groups like Planned Parenthood does not go to providing abortions but to other operational costs. This is nothing more than a shell game. Federal dollars free up other monies for use in other service lines, like abortion. At this point, I’m not making any moral argument. I’m just advocating an honest and forthright discussion.

As to the moral argument, there are some who believe that abortion, at any stage of development, is murder. In all transparency, I would count myself among such people. By requiring me to fund, even nominally, or in some other way provide money that frees up other money to fund the act of abortion, I am being required to participate in a sinful act. There are those, on the other hand, who believe it is immoral to require a woman to carry a child to full-term if she does not want to do so. If we did nothing more than prohibit any type of direct or indirect public funding of abortion, we would partially address this moral dilemma by freeing people from financially contributing to a procedure they consider immoral and by allowing others to privately pay for a procedure they believe to be moral. Again, this is only a partial solution to a much bigger issue.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which relates to crime and punishment, states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” This same language is used in the 14^th Amendment, which addresses citizenship. In the context of abortion, this begs the question, when does life begin?

For some, life begins at conception. Two living cells (i.e., egg and sperm) join to create a multicellular, living organism. By definition, an embryo exists at this stage, and by definition, it is a “developing organism.” But what does it mean to develop? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, it means to “grow or cause to grow and become more mature, advanced, or elaborate.” The phrase, "and become more,” is predicated on something existing in the first place. So, what exists? To answer that question, we must look at the parts that form the whole. I presume all would agree that the mass of cells, which differentiate and specialize during this developmental stage, are human cells, programmed by human DNA. Consequently, for a human to “become more, mature, advanced, or elaborate,” a human must exist from the beginning. After all, something can not become more of something it is not already.

For some, this may seem too simplistic and life must begin at a later stage. Like Aristotle’s rationale and that of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, there must be a viability test. The mass of cells is not a person until it becomes viable. What does that mean? According to Stedman’s Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing, “viable” means “capable of living; denoting a fetus sufficiently developed to live outside the uterus.” The Supreme Court drew lines for sufficient development along the trimesters of pregnancy. At the time, perhaps this made sense in terms of viability. As medical science has advanced, though, viability is continually pushed back earlier and earlier in the gestational timeline. Premature babies are kept alive at ever-earlier stages in development. What was considered an unviable mass of tissues 40 years ago is now considered a viable human being.  It seems that the value of a person’s life should be based on something a bit more objective. A bit more on viability will be discussed below.

In a broader sense, using viability begs some larger questions about life and death. Who decides viability? Who regulates it? Is any individual viable? Without many others supporting me, I am fairly certain I do not have the full set of skills requisite for survival on my own. It would seem, therefore, that I am not viable. Consequently, could some power that be determine my life to be forfeit to the greater good? I admit this may be taking the argument to an extreme, but it does represent the slippery slope that is the argument of viability.

Another argument for abortion is “parthood,” which states that the embryo or fetus is part of the mother’s body, so it should be her decision in terms of what to do with it, much like an elective surgery to remove some other growth. True, the embryo or fetus is attached to the mother by way of the placenta and umbilical cord. Is attachment actually the same as being part of the body? Let us first consider what makes up a body? Our bodies include musculoskeletal, circulatory, nervous, integumentary, hematopoietic, immune, respiratory, digestive, urinary, endocrine and reproductive systems. Of specific interest to our discussion is the reproductive systems, namely the female reproductive system. It includes “internal” reproductive organs: ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and vagina, and “external” reproductive organs: vulva and clitoris. It also includes a temporary organ called the placenta that connects the fetus to the woman’s body.

By definition, an embryo or fetus is not included as part of any human organ system. In fact, it is something separate that is connected to the woman’s body through the placenta. The only somewhat-related metaphor I can think of is that of conjoined twins, in which two entities share some common organs and/or organ systems. Even in this situation, they are viewed as distinct individuals.

Another situation that arises and confounds the “parthood” argument is the murder of a pregnant woman or the wounding of a pregnant woman that results in the termination of the pregnancy. In the former situation, a perpetrator is charged with two counts of homicide. In the latter, with one. How can a murder of the embryo/fetus take place if it is not a human being?

A common accusation made against the conservative perspective on abortion generally and the pro-life perspective specifically is that they ignore science. Based even on this cursory review, it seems that science, by definition, disproves the “parthood” argument, as does the legal considerations related to homicide. If nothing else, this review gives us some food for thought.

The counter argument to “parthood” is the “container” argument. The woman’s body is essentially a container, as the name of the argument would suggest, for the developing child. This seems to comport more closely with the physiology we previously reviewed. Given that a woman and an embryo or fetus are distinct entities, we must explore the relationship between the two.

If the embryo or fetus is not a human being, the argument is clear. The organism has, in a certain respect, no more value than a parasite that is leaching resources from the woman. That being the case, the woman not only has a right to remove it, but she has a duty to herself to do so. Clearly, though, this is not the case. With the exception of rape, a woman chooses to engage in intercourse, knowing that it may lead to pregnancy. With the exception potentially of mental illness, a woman would not voluntarily infect herself with a parasite. From a physiological perspective, too, there is a difference. For pregnancy to be possible, the woman’s body produces a temporary organ – the placenta – to foster a suitable environment for the embryo/fetus to develop. This does not happen in terms of some parasite.

We return, then, to the earlier discussion of when life begins. Once that is determined, how can abortion be anything but the deprivation of life of another individual human being?

As “viability” has been and likely will continue to be a moving target, it makes this approach to determining the point at which one is a human being quite subjective. It’s even more so for the poor, who have limited access to higher level prenatal care, and as we all know, this disproportionally impacts in an adverse way minority women. Consequently, a de facto condition exists, similar to the so-called “separate but equal” application of law during the Jim Crow era, of inequality as it pertains to defining the very condition of humanity. For members of the higher socioeconomic groups, viability is applied differently than for those of lower socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, because socioeconomic disparities tragically fall along racial lines, this approach to determining viability and humanity itself is inherently racist.

As discussed in prior posts, I firmly believe that there cannot be equality until all laws and standards are applied equitably and blindly to all people. The only objective standard that treats all women and all unborn equally is that which asserts that life begins at conception. It seems to me that this also comports with the science of the matter. The mass of cells is indeed alive. The mass of cells function based on human DNA. If a whole is truly the sum of its parts, in this case the fundamental parts being human DNA, how can the embryo/fetus be anything other than a human being?

When the issue of life itself is on the line, why would we, as a society, apply a subjective standard in lieu of one that is objective?

I have mentioned the issue of rape. Admittedly, my personal position on this issue is less clear. Certainly, I would hope that a conceived child not be punished for the aggressive act of a rapist. As for the rapist, I favor life in jail and throw away the key! Next to murder, it is the most egregious act of violent aggression that one person can take against another. We, as a society, should have no toleration whatsoever for the act of rape. Period. The difficulty for me is that in such a case, the woman in no way voluntarily engaged in the sexual act that resulted in conception. In principle, I cannot support a child’s abortion in this case. In practice, though, I think about the physical, mental and emotional trauma to the woman. Personally, I cannot condemn her in this situation for making what I am sure is the most difficult decision of her life. For women who give birth under these circumstances, I have the greatest admiration for their bravery and compassion. For the woman who cannot, I do not believe I am in a position to damn her. For her, I believe it is my moral obligation to have compassion for her.

In situations of the choice between saving the mother’s life or the baby’s life, I believe it’s a decision that must be made between a woman and her physician, and depending on the family dynamic, the woman’s husband, too. This is not to say the husband has the right to say who should live and who should die, it is simply to acknowledge that in some families, this is a decision the wife and husband may choose to make together.

The challenge is that abortion is so personal and often such a difficult decision for people. It is important to recognize, though, that it is a decision that has greater impact than simply on the health choices of one person. As you consider the issue of abortion, which of the principles discussed above do you embrace? Which can you defend? As you listen to the candidates for the presidency and the legislature, which ones will advance your position?

Week 33: Gun Control

Next to the issue of abortion, little causes more emotive debate than the right to bear arms or the restriction of that right. The right to bear arms is often conflated with other issues, such as violence and mental health. If people are to have an intelligent discussion of the issue, it seems important to unbundle these various topics, understand them, and then reconstruct meaningful and informed proposals. Remembering that, by definition, a right is something inherent in one’s personhood and cannot be bestowed by a government or ruler and cannot legitimately be taken away, let us examine gun control.

In the Fall of 1788, after extensive debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it was determined that the proposed Constitution – if it were to be adopted – required an enumeration of rights possessed by the people. It was not that the Framers did not respect the people’s rights, it was simply that some saw the Constitution as a guide for the proper functioning of the new government, whereas others, because of their recent experience with tyranny, wanted explicit assurances in the document that the people’s rights would be inviolable. It was clear that proponents of the Constitution would not successfully secure the necessary votes to be adopted if the issue of individual rights was not addressed. Therefore, in 1789, James Madison prepared 12 articles of amendment, which were approved by Congress and sent, along with the Constitution, to the states for ratification. Articles three through 12 were ratified, leaving the original articles one and two out of the ratified social contract. Later, the original second amendment would be passed into law as the 27^th amendment, which pertains to increases in the salaries of members of Congress. The original first amendment, which addresses the number of seats in the House of Representatives and has no time limit for ratification, is pending to this day before the states’ legislatures.

The purpose for this history lesson is simply to recall the fact that the Bill of Rights came into being as the result of careful and considered debate.

Article the Second  (as the amendments were styled at the time) of the Bill of Rights states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Framers were incredible students of history and philosophy. They surveyed the corpus of knowledge available to them – classical and contemporary – to construct the principles of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment, for example, drew on British law, the protections of which the colonists had preferred over revolution, but to which they had been denied. In the British Bill of Rights of 1689, the right to bear arms was expressed thusly, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” It was a provision that was based on an understanding of Natural Law, an understanding with which the Framers, too, were well acquainted. Natural Law dictates that it is the inherent right of an individual to engage in self-defense and, by extension, to resist tyranny. It is, therefore, inconsistent with Natural Law to prohibit an individual from possession of the means (e.g., arms) necessary to effect such self-defense and resistance.

In Federalist 46, James Madison writes, “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” The bottom line of this passage from Federalist 46 is that a government will be kept in check if its leaders and functionaries know that the people have the means to protect themselves from the ambitious abuse of power. Put simply, those who govern would need to think twice about using force against the people, because the people could do the same in self-defense against the government.

Some will argue that it was a different time, and the need to be protected from government’s abuse no longer has meaning.

Indeed, it was a different time. There was no standing army. There was no massive bureaucracy with agency personnel required to carry weapons, such as certain agents of today’s United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, to name but a few. Consider these examples. They are not armed defenders enlisted to subdue enemies from without. No! they are gun-toting agents hired to subdue citizens within.

It seems that in the past 230 years, our government of, by and for the people has been arming itself against the people.

With that paradigm slowly but surely shifted, what do the politicians of today demand of the American people? Disarm yourselves. Surrender your guns. Over time, they have been successful in laying the groundwork for this demand – for the very type of confiscation that former candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke called for during his campaign.

To what end do such politicians make calls for restrictions on or repeal of the right to bear arms? The most common argument is to end the scourge of mass shootings. To be sure, no one can argue that the slaying of innocent people, be it one person or a group, is an abhorrent blight on our nation. Out of respect, though, for those who have been murdered, ought we not assure to their posterity that a proper root-cause analysis is conducted? Is the presence of guns truly the cause of their demise? I would argue that this is not the case.

According to Statista.com, 37 percent of American households were estimated to own one or more guns in 2019, with no clear upward or downward trend since 1972. Going back a bit further, it is estimated that the majority of American households owned one or more guns around the time of the founding. A William and Mary Law Review article by James Lindgren and Justin Heather, “Counting Guns in Early America” (Volume 43, Issue 5), examined previous work and probate records to reach this conclusion.

If an abundance of guns is the cause of gun-related violence, why has such violence increased over the past half century despite a relatively flat trend in gun ownership? Why was gun-related violence not a national plague at the time of the founding when there was greater gun ownership?

Perhaps the answer isn’t the proliferation of guns; and furthermore, rather than create hysteria about the right to bear arms, we should dig a bit deeper to understand the cause of gun violence.

In our culture, we are bombarded with violence on the television and in the theaters, as well as in graphic video games. Might the liberal elite of Hollywood be numbing our senses to violence and conditioning us to devalue human life? There is some far-from-amusing irony that the same crowd that uses the tragedy of gun violence to attack proponents of the Second Amendment are the same purveyors of violent media that makes mayhem and murder commonplace.

Another possible cause of violence may be attributed to the crisis that is an increase in mental illness. According to the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), the percentage change in prevalence of any mental illness was an increase of eight percent from 2008 to 2018. Tragically, the percentage increase in prevalence of serious mental illness during the same timeframe was 24 percent. An important factor during this timeframe related to these increases is the sharp increase in mental illness among people aged 18-25.

Also according to the NIHCM, loneliness and social isolation are contributing factors to mental illness. While I am not a psychologist or sociologist, it seems to me that it is conceivable that our virtual world is diminishing personalization and bonding among people. Perhaps this makes violence against others less difficult to countenance.

Regardless of these hypotheses, it is critical to get to the bottom of all violence, including that which is committed with guns. That said, it is critical, too, that we do not abandon a constitutional right for reasons that may be merely correlated but clearly are not causal.

By way of analogy, people decry “fake news.” Do we do away with a free press? Political polarization is causing people to physically attack those of different views. Do we prohibit free speech? I think most people would answer “no” to these questions. And that is the proper answer. However, people are supporting such restrictions on many college campuses today. What were once bastions of free speech and thought are purposefully employing restrictive zoning for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. But I digress.

Finally, let us not ignore the lessons of history. As Germany was preparing its conquest of Europe, Russia, and the rest of the world, German Führer Adolph Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So, let’s not have any native militia or native police.” With this belief firmly in place, with the subjugation of Jews through the Nuremberg laws, and with the degradation of non-German, non-Aryan people (e.g., Russians, Poles and other Slavs) affirmed by the regime, the German gun control legislation of 1938, prohibited gun ownership by subjugated people while simultaneously loosening the 1928 Weimar Republic gun restrictions for German citizens, particularly for those with some affinity to the Nazi party.

I do not use this example from history to argue that this particular Nazi policy resulted in the annihilation of the German Jewish population or that of the nations that fell under German control. After all, gun ownership was relatively low because of limits imposed on all Germans during the period of the Weimar Republic. Rather, I use it to expose the intent of those who would restrict such rights, especially as a means of control. Thinking back to Federalist 46, resistance would certainly be futile if the people had nothing but sticks and stones to check the power of an all-powerful, heavily armed government.

If further restrictions on the Second Amendment are legislated, it will be of great interest to see what exemptions might be part of the law. After all, some of the loudest critics of citizens’ gun rights are themselves protected by heavily armed guards, which is yet one more example of the hypocrisy of the ruling class.

As the election season continues, candidates’ positions on the Second Amendment may provide great insight into their general respect, or lack thereof, for the inalienable rights that you and I have as citizens of the United States of America.

Week 34: Pandering

This may be the most controversial post to date, so pray permit me to ground you, kind reader, in the foundations of my belief system. First and foremost, all people, regardless of any attribute at all, have the same moral worth. Period! No exceptions! Second, all people are inherently good. It is only through circumstances or injury (e.g., mental illness) that people diverge from the path of goodness. Third, all people are unique with their own dreams and aspirations, their own likes and dislikes, their own wants and needs. Fourth, all people need other people. We are a social species. Fifth, we enact small and large, formal and informal social contracts to better manage our relationships and to effect individual fulfillment and societal harmony. As you read on, please keep in mind that this is the lens through which I view the world as it is and as it should be. Please keep in mind that, in my opinion, the political strategy described below, one embraced and extolled by many candidates vying for our votes, is based on a belief system that has existed in America since its early days and that continues to exist today.

The issue of the “black vote” (not my term; see below) comes up time and time again on the campaign trail. Every four years, people of African descent become pawns in the political chess match. Actually, this plays out on a biennial timeframe, as politicians’ gamesmanship is also in full vigor during mid-term elections. As we discussed in Week 38, identity politics should be anathema to We the People. Human beings ought not be means to someone else’s political ends. Individuals and their happiness are the ends, and the social contract, which is made manifest in a form of government, is the mean by which people effect their ends.

For this reason, the debate and primary in South Carolina should test even the most generous of credulity. Former Vice President Joe Biden went to South Carolina touting his record, as it relates to the African-American community, and stating that no one can win the nomination without the “black vote” (his term and that of others on the debate stage). And so continued, in full force, the pandering we see in every election cycle.

As I listen to the candidates’ bona fides – their lists of so-called achievements from the past and their promises for the future, it seems apparent that their opinion of this specific demographic group is not dissimilar from their political and ideological predecessors who fought to preserve the institution of slavery and sought to keep, through the laws of the Jim Crow era, this group of HUMAN BEINGS with moral worth equal to every other human being separate from the then majority.

Listening to their debate and town hall rhetoric and reading the information on their own Web sites and in their published interviews, today’s politicians tout the safety net (i.e., welfare programs) that the federal government provides as a panacea for African Americans. They talk about free education, but they fail to mention that the schools that are most needed to lift people out of poverty are the very schools that progressives have run into the ground for scores upon scores of decades. They decry the decrease in food stamps, while failing to hail the increase in employment that brings dignity and self-sufficiency. They call for subsidized housing, but fail to acknowledge the deplorable conditions found in much of government-funded housing. The list goes on and on.

While thinking about the candidates’ naked pandering, I was reminded of Theodore Weld’s stunningly powerful book, “American slavery as it is: testimony of a thousand witnesses.” Published in 1839, it is a compilation of firsthand accounts from enslaved people concerning that most evil of institutions. In his introduction to the horrifying testimonials that follow, Weld describes the twisted dichotomy of the slaveholder. Of the slaveholder, he states, “He can make you go without your liberty, but never without a shirt.” Can slaveholders be “Plunderers of their liberty, yet the careful suppliers of their wants? Robbers of their earnings, yet watchful sentinels round their interests, and kind providers of their comforts?”

Weld mocks the sentiment among many slaveholders of the day. They argued that black people could not be stewards of their own liberty and welfare; therefore, it was the duty of white people to enslave black people. They then feigned concern for the welfare of enslaved people and disingenuously clothed and Christianized them. They forced the slave to be beholden to them. In return they provided for them the barest of necessities to survive.

How are the policies of today’s self-styled progressives any different, from the perspective of the principles involved?

The growth of the welfare state and the inequitable criminal justice system are the modern-day equivalents to what Weld observed nearly 200 years ago. Today’s enslavement of people is, I believe, more insidious, because it is shrouded in twisted, duplicitous rhetoric about freedom.

During the two centuries leading up to Weld’s publication, people were forcibly brought to America, bound and chained, to toil in the worst imaginable conditions in exchange for rags to wear, hovels in which to live, and meager rations to eat. They had no choice whatsoever.

Today, people tragically choose to give up their liberty in exchange for subsistence living. By this, I mean people vote for those who have a record of destroying communities through lack of choice in education, promotion of broken homes, overcrowding and its attendant stressors, and reliance on government for the very food they eat, just to name a few. Here are good people – good human beings – who in my opinion are enslaved, not to slaveholders but to the government. It is a government that intentionally and knowingly persuades people to relinquish their liberty – and with it their dignity – in exchange for conditions that often doom them to a life of servitude. To add insult to injury, the powers that be construct a so-called criminal justice system that inequitably pursues, prosecutes and incarcerates people based on the color of their skin at a disproportionately high rate compared to others for similar offenses. In this sense the chains and shackles of the past are not metaphorical but are present-day realities.

Granted, there are beautiful and inspiring stories of people who break the chains of poverty and deception that would otherwise keep them beholden to the welfare state. Dr. Ben Carson is a wonderful example. It can be done! One can fight and overcome the systematic barriers of the progressive government, but why in the name of God should one have to fight and overcome one’s own government in order to pursue happiness?

The problem is that the conditions described above are not only ones that enslave generation after generation to reliance on the government, but they are also the ones that secure and augment the power of the political class. Their pandering leads to a usury of the very soul of our fellow citizens – our fellow human beings. The welfare state confers great power on those who hold the purse strings of government, and lest we forget the words of Lord Acton, let us recall them now. “Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

As the field of candidates narrows, let us view it as a moral obligation to examine which candidates wish to perpetuate a condition of de facto enslavement through pandering and through promises of long-tried and long-failed policies, and which candidates promote policies that foster dignity, liberty and the beauty and fullness of humanity that comes with self-reliance.

Week 35: Debt Forgiveness

In Act I of Hamlet, Polonius offers the following advice to his son, Laertes, “Neither a borrower nor lender be.” If college students of the present and of the not too distant past, myself included, had minded their Shakespeare, we would not be in the student loan crisis we are today. Because Polonius’ advice was not taken, and because the federal government promoted the issuance of loans to college students, without regard to factors like the employability certain degrees would procure or the number of years students would take to complete a degree, approximately 45 million borrowers (graduates and those who never graduated) owe more than $1.5 trillion.

In this campaign season, both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are proposing to cancel this debt. With Sanders in the lead and talk of Warren as a possible running mate, this is a proposal that may get some traction. While it may sound great to some, it’s yet one more bumper-sticker policy that would fade away quickly and cause long-term damage to the economy and to our society.

First, what does such a proposal teach people, particularly young Americans, about responsibility? When I took out student loans for some of my college, and the terms of my loans were clear. Clearer still was the fact that I would have to repay them. I am still repaying them. Would it be nice to have that debt canceled? Sure! But what happens when I tire of paying my credit card debts (although I fortunately have no such debt anymore) or my mortgage? If I cried loudly and persistently to the Sanders and Warrens of the political world, might they cancel those debts, too? If so, where does it stop? What’s the incentive for me to handle my life and my resources responsibly? There is none. Furthermore, cancelation does not magically happen, the $1.5 trillion debt does not simply disappear. The cost is born by the few lenders of the world or is spread across society, whether directly or indirectly. It is a shift from individual responsibility to societal responsibility. Once that happens, the impetus for personal accountability is removed, and life becomes a free-for-all. Consequences be damned. And what do we expect of a society in which the youth are taught to believe that their choices have no consequences? I, for one, expect the ruination of such a society.

Second, such a proposal turns a blind eye to the lessons of history, and as we know, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Around 325 B.C., Aristotle prepared the Athenian Constitution, which referenced the constitution of the lawgiver Solon from approximately 250 years before. Solon’s constitution included a provision called the Seisachtheia, which means the “shaking off of burdens.” It was Solon’s term for cancelling all debts. This was great for the debtors, but it wasn’t so great for those to whom the debts were owed. One Athenian may have produced some good or performed some service for another Athenian, and with this “shaking off of burdens,” the money owed by the latter to the former was never, nor ever would be, repaid.

Think of it. You perform some service for me, contingent on my promise to pay you for that service. Along comes Sanders and/or Warren, and their government says that, not only do I not have to repay you, but I get to keep the good or service.

It is not dissimilar with education loan forgiveness. The lender gave me money, contingent on my obtaining an education and, because of that education, being able to secure a job that would produce the financial resources necessary for me to repay the lender. If the government, with the stroke of a pen, says I am no longer required to pay back my loan, I keep the education, and the lender gets nothing. The lender promised me money. I promised to repay it. The government, under Sanders and/or Warren would come in and say those promises don’t matter. Where in this situation is the longed-for justice they constantly decry? This is not justice, it is a pack of broken promises.

Back to Athens. The Seisachtheia worked well in the near term, at least for some. The wealthy and well-connected were informed ahead of time that the forgiveness of debts was imminent. Consequently, they racked up huge amounts of debt, knowing it would be wiped out. Many became fabulously rich under this scheme. Make no mistake, if Sanders and/or Warren are successful, there would be a payoff for powerful people. Someway, somehow, someone will become rich.

After the “shaking off” was enacted, people found that no one was interested in loaning money, so it was impossible to get credit. People were stuck. They became frustrated. After Solon’s Seisachtheia, revolt and revolution reigned. Again, make no mistake, if student loan debts are wiped out, who will lend money going forward? One would have to be an idiot to do so.

Sanders and Warren answer this question with “free” higher education for all. They ignore the moral hazard this presents. If “free” to the consumer (i.e., the student), there will be no restraint on people entering university, whether or not they have the ability to succeed or the true desire to be there. Heck, I’d sign up for four years of government-sponsored socializing in ivy-covered halls and pre-game keggers in the fall. There is a but…

As the great economist Milton Freidman reminded people, “there is no free lunch.” Nor is there such a thing as a “free” education. Professors won’t teach for free. Lecture halls won’t be powered for free. There is a price tag, and in the plans of Sanders and Warren, the receipt is picked up by the taxpayers of the nation, whether or not they go to college or have kids who do. Both claim that a wealth tax on billionaires will cover the trillions and trillions of dollars their plans, including debt cancellation and “free” college education, will cost.

What do they take us for…fools…fools who cannot do math or understand a balance sheet? They view us as ignorant fools. We are not!

The bill will come, and eventually it will land in your hands and in mine. As a responsible person, I prefer to enter into financial arrangements, such as taking out a student loan, and to abide by the promises I make, such as repaying them in full and on time. Bringing another party, namely the government, into the mix will do nothing but increase the cost of education. They believe that if the costs are hidden among the various and sundry taxes we pay, we won’t notice and won’t care. Let us not let that be the case.

Week 36: Frontrunner Sanders

At the founding of our nation, when Jefferson wrote about the unalienable rights of man: including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and when Gouverneur Morris and the constitutional Committee on Style wrote about justice, domestic tranquility, common defence, the general welfare and the blessings of liberty, they were rejecting the early colonial socialist experiments from a century before and the contemporary totalitarian reality they were experiencing under the rule of George III. The United States of America, as conceived in the latter part of the eighteenth century, was a revolution against oppressive government control and a revolution for individual liberty.

Approximately 230 year later, we Americans find ourselves in a Presidential election season in which one party is embracing the very socialistic and tyrannical ideas that our form of government was designed to mitigate. The Democrat primaries – at least to date – appear to be a show of support for Senator Bernie Sanders and his policies, which he himself describes as socialist.

Sanders is quoted in the past as saying, “The U.S. Constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often.” Looking at Sanders’ official election Web site, one may be inclined to wonder if he meant the U.S. constitution or that of the USSR. On his site, he calls for “a wholesale transformation of our society.” If the U.S. Constitution is the social contract that lays the foundation of our society, these two statements would seem to be at odds.

The U.S. Constitution is a document that is deliberately designed to limit the role of government vis-à-vis the citizens. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights that the government cannot violate, as well as a general protection of rights not listed in the document itself. The message is clear, the people of the United States are inherently free, and the sole purpose of government is to protect each citizen’s individual liberty.

I challenge anyone to visit Sanders’ Web site and find any policy proposal that is congruent with the national ethos fostered by the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I dare say, it cannot be done.

Let us look, instead, to the constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (aka the Soviet Union), and for our purposes we shall examine the 1936 version. The congruence of Sanders’ policies with the articles set forth in Chapter I of Soviet constitution, a chapter that lays out how society will be organized, is readily apparent.

Article 1 of the Soviet constitution states that the nation is a state of workers and peasants. As one reads through the planks of Sanders’ plan for America, each proposal involves the transfer of power from capitalists to workers, from bourgeoisie to proletariat. His proposals are based on the false belief that work and wealth, power and success are zero-sum games. If one person does well, it must be at the expense of another. Therefore, the government’s role in Sanders’ America is to forcibly redistribute work, wealth, power and success, based on his conception of justice. In the articles that follow, you, kind reader, will see just a sampling of Sanders’ proposals for our nation, one that aims to tear down some so that others may be raised up.

Article 2 promotes the overthrow of landlords and capitalists. At this point, Sanders is not proposing that the government forcibly take the land and business of landlords and capitalists, but he does propose in his “Corporate Accountability and Democracy” plan to require companies that meet certain size requirements to be 20-percent owned (in terms of stock ownership) by its workers. The plan also calls for 45 percent of such companies’ boards of directors be elected by the workers of the company. The next step is to transfer ownership of private companies to the workers, not through force but through re-education. He proposes that retiring business owners would go to Worker Ownership Centers to be educated on the benefits of employee ownership of companies. Such re-education would endeavor to compel people to turn their businesses over to the collective of the workers, as opposed, for example, to passing them on to their children or other heirs of their choosing. In Sanders’ “Workplace Democracy Plan,” he denies federal contracts to any companies that “outsource jobs overseas, pay workers less than $15 an hour without benefits, refuse to remain neutral in union organizing efforts, pay executives over 150 times more than average workers, hire workers to replace striking workers, or close businesses after workers vote to unionize.” Effectively, his plan overthrows the direction and control that a capitalist has over the business he or she has created.

Article 3 gives power to the so-called working people, which implies that those who do not labor in factories or on farms are not working people. Sanders’ “Workplace Democracy Plan” significantly increases the power that unions have in the workplace. Remember that there is, indeed, a difference in the goals and objectives of a union and those of its members. The cautionary tale of being careful for what one wishes may be apropos to workers as they weight this plan. His plan also limits an employer’s right and ability to fire its employees.

Article 4 transfers the means of production to the state in an effort to forbid the exploitation of man by man. This article is closely tied to Article 2 in that stock ownership and board representation requirements effectively shift the control of the means of production to workers, who in Sanders’ America would be unionized and, therefore, a de facto organ of the state. This should beg an important question for each worker. Are they trading one exploiter for another? When “exploited” by a business owner, it is easier to walk into his or her office to discuss concerns. It will be much more difficult when the exploiter sits in a paneled office on the Hill in Washington, D.C.

Article 5 divides all property into that owned by the state or by collectives. Although Sanders still allows for the private ownership of property, his “Housing for All” policy states that his administration will use the power of the federal government to “combat gentrification, exclusionary zoning, segregation and speculation.” To be sure, exclusionary practices and segregation, historically both tactics of the left, are repugnant to equality and dignity, but our system of government empowers state and local governments to address such issues. This plan is a transfer of power from our local representatives to bureaucrats in Washington. As part of his plan, Sanders’ proposes to build 10 million housing units to end the housing shortage.

Article 6 transfers ownership of all resources to the state, which purports to mean all people. Through government-funded programs in his “Green New Deal,” Sanders proposes that people use their lawns for farming to meet their own immediate food needs and that communities collectivize grocery stores and return food processing, slaughterhouses and dairies to local communities. There is no comment on what this would do in terms of economies of scale, efficiency and cost to the consumer. Additionally, the “Green New Deal” expands the government’s ownership of land, and it proposes that land be worked through a “reimagined” Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).  The CCC under Roosevelt was designed to put unemployed people to work, given the fact that so many were out of work during the Depression, and to build job skills. With employment at historically high levels, it is less clear what the purpose of Sanders’ CCC would be.

Article 7 describes land use and ownership in collective farms and cooperative organizations. Buried in his “Green New Deal,” the last bullet item in the detailed description of Sanders’ plan promotes the collective ownership of farmlands. This final point follows proposals like price setting, regulatory oversight regimes, and all sorts of government penalties and restrictions that limit free trade.

Article 8 guarantees the people’s occupation of collective farms in perpetuity and without charge. Sanders’ “Housing for All” policy seeks to implement national rent control, like that of New York City, which has so perverted the housing market, making it one of the more costly places to live in the United States. His policy also makes it increasingly difficult for landlords to evict people from buildings they own.

Article 9 allows for a limited private market for peasants and craftsmen. While Sanders’ plans do not directly address this issue, his “Workplace Democracy” plan does limit a worker’s right to pursue his own objectives in that Sanders’ administration would require workers to pay union dues, even if they do not want to be part of the union, ending the right-to-work movement that has freed so many workers from their union masters. He would also eliminate the ability of workers to obtain permanent employment with an employer if they cross picket lines to work for that employer during a strike.

Article 10 permits the people to keep the income and personal property (e.g., clothing, utensils, furniture) they earn, and it guarantees the transfer of such property as inheritance. Surprisingly, this is one area in which Americans would be better off under the Soviet system. Sanders proposes a 99.8 percent inheritance tax. Granted, it’s a tax on the wealthy, but it is a tax that would encourage the wealthy to dispose of their wealth in frivolous spending and extravagant living, as opposed to passing it on for useful purposes and capital investment by their heirs. Under Sanders’ plan, clothing, utensils and a few sticks of furniture are all that one could pass on to their descendants.

Article 11 directs the state control of economic life as a way to increase public wealth and supposedly to improve the working people’s material conditions, as well as their cultural level. Sanders’ "sectoral collective bargaining system," part of his “Workplace Democracy Plan,” will set wages for all industries, as opposed to wages being tied to what the market dictates. His “Medicare for All” proposal will eliminate private insurance, including plans for unionized workers, and it will require that all citizens be subject to a federal healthcare system. Regarding education, one can only imagine what sort of propaganda and indoctrination that Sanders’ “Education for All” plan will embed in public schools. Just look at the arrangement between the New York Times Magazine and the public-school system in which the magazine’s 1619 project is revising the history of slavery in this country to achieve the left’s ends of political correctness and to veil the promulgation of its own racist policies. Additionally, Sanders calls for greater federal control of schools, starting with attacks on charter schools. Given that, it seems likely that parochial and other private schools could be targeted next for removal to the dustbin of history under a Sanders’ administration.

Article 12 mandates work, stating, “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Sanders addresses this concept through his “Jobs for All” policy. Under Sanders, everyone is assured a job at a living wage. He stops short of saying that a job will be required for every citizen. Might that notion be implied? I cannot say, but given the similarities between Sanders’ plans and the Soviet constitution, it seems like a safe inference. Interestingly, this is the least detailed part of Sanders’ plan.

Sanders, Warren and those of their ilk, who long for a socialist state, try to convince us that happiness and misery are the ingredients of a finite pie. For me to be happy, I must cause you misery. They do not believe – or rather the do not want us to believe – that we can all be happy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union came in 1991, just 29 years ago. Their experiment in socialism is not ancient history. Lenin, Stalin and their many successors decimated their economy, obliterated their culture, and caused the death of millions of their citizens, all in the pursuit of some idealized utopia. Let us recall the Greek etymology of “utopia.” It means “not place” or in other words, a place that does not or cannot exist. Every attempt in history – ancient, modern and contemporary – to achieve utopia results in dystopia, or a bad or abnormal place. Both utopia and dystopia require the extinguishing of human individualism and spirit at the altar of the collective. There is a reason that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that free thinkers in Cuba are imprisoned, and that the good people of Venezuela are starving and dying despite living in a resource-abundant land. The reason is that socialism is tyranny, and Liberty is anathema to tyranny. Liberty must be crushed or tyranny must implode. Socialism, which requires tyranny to function, results in human misery. It always has and always will. It cannot otherwise exist.

Sanders and his comrades tell you and me that we are slaves to our corporate masters. For a moment, let us suppose that we are. In a capitalist system, each of us has the freedom to leave that so-called master and find a better one. In a socialist system, we trade a thousand masters (some good, some bad) for one master: the state. There is no alternative. There is no freedom to choose something better for oneself. It is that choice, the ability of the worker to choose, that keeps their masters in check. Without that choice, that check, the worker is truly oppressed. Such oppression is only possible when the state is supreme.

Look at the mechanisms of control described above. Better yet, go to Sanders’ election site and read it for yourself. This, in itself, is an interesting proposition. Each plank of his plan includes a handful of high-level, easy-to-find bullet points that may sound, to some, like noble aspirations. However, as they say, the devil is in the detail. To find the detail, one must dig. It’s almost as if the details are intentionally hidden from the casual reader. After reading his proposals, reflect on how his plans might advance liberty and happiness. If you can figure that out, let me know!